[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

[lojban] Re: Usage of lo and le

On 5/12/06, John E Clifford <clifford-j@sbcglobal.net> wrote:

--- Maxim Katcharov <maxim.katcharov@gmail.com>
wrote:

> On 5/11/06, John E Clifford
> <clifford-j@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
> > Well, I am not sure how much more clearly
> since I
> > am not clear what the two approaches are that
> you
> > see as being used and as bsiing inconsistent
> with
> > one another.  It seems to me that if the
> Lojban
>
> Quoting xorxes:
>
> <<Position 1: There is a determinate number of
> things that satisfy
> the predicate {cribe}, independent of any
> context whatsoever. Therefore
> in any context {lo ro cribe} refers to all and
> exactly those things.>>

But who exactly holds this?  To be sure, we can


I hold this position, and you're arguing against it and for only
Position 2. I'm arguing for including both this position /and/
Position 2.



> <<Position 2: The things that satisfy any
> predicate may vary with
> context. In a given context {lo ro cribe}
> refers to all and exactly the
> things that in that context satisfy the
> predicate {cribe} (not just the
> things present where the speaker is, mind you,
> all the things that
> relevantly satisfy the predicate).>>

I think there may be some confusion in
terminology going on here, between what is in
context and what is relevant.  I suspect I have
been using them interchangeably and xorxes seem
to be doing so, too, at least until recently.
The context involved  and the relevance are both
features of the flow of conversation, not just
the physical location or the like; the domain of
discourse (which is again the things relevant in
the context) is ideational (or linguistic), not
physical or sensory, expands and contracts with
what is being said (and charting the exact flow
is not something that anyone has tried to do
beyond noting what is in or out at a given point
in the conversation -- and whether the steps have
been taken to assure that all conversants have
essentially the same view).


One form of context is the setting (let's call it the setting from now
on), and the other is this flow of discourse. The flow of discourse is
used by the listener to determine what the speaker is saying (I would
call this the context of the conversation/things that are relevant).
Is this correct?

I'm proposing that we give the speaker the option to be definitely
precise, meaning that the listener doesn't have to rely on context,
and can take the words of the speaker exactly as they are.



> > use of {ro} is inconsistent, then so is the
> > English use of "all," the main difference I
> see
>
> Yes, it is. Just like the English use of most
> English words is inconsistent.

This seems a very odd thing to say.  It appears
to be either false -- since English shows no
signs of collapsing in the way that inconsistency
would be expected to create -- or to involve a


It need not collapse. In English, there are many shortcuts, and
multiple meanings to a word that may require clarification. I mean,
look, I've been saying "all bears (existing before, now, future,
imaginary, hypothetical...)" every time I want to get the idea of "all
bears" across, without it being the confused with "all bears in
context" (a.k.a. "all relevant bears"). Just because it can be done
this way, doesn't mean that it's the right or best way.

I was stating that your definition fails under my example, not that
humans are incapable of circumventing such failures.

What I mean by inconsistent is that you use Position 1 when it suits
you. Or it may be better described as a hack. Hack or inconsistency, I
oppose either. Look at the most recent "2/20 certain bears in a cage,
I want all bears in the cage" example I responded to xorxes with.


>
> I understand this usage of {ro}, and my {L_
> cribe} (a lack of ro)
> implements this usage.

But, since it does not involve {ro}, it does not
implement that usage.  Do you mean (I suppose you


It implements the usage ('idea behind') "this" (your) {ro}, it doesn't
actually use it.


do) that your expression {lo cribe} ({le} doesn't
really have a role in all this) says the same
thing as standard {lo ro cribe} (or, as you would
say, "{lo ro cribe} in this sense")?  This flies
in the face of established Lojban usage, where
{lo cribe} is (loosely speaking, since this is an
area of controversy -- but your suggestion is not
in the range) an unspecified bunch of bears,
maybe one, maybe all, maybe somewhere in between,
and maybe some suprabear entity that is
represented by those things or functions
autonomously.  In no case is it delimited as all
the relevent bears in the context.



Sure it does. If the listener properly understands {L_ cribe} to mean
an unspecified bunch of bears, maybe one, maybe[...], then he has
correctly picked out all the relevant bears.

To which I expect you to say "no, all relevant bears means all the
ones that we've brought up in the course of the discourse". I'd ask
you to provide an example of when do you ever want to refer to all
bears in the discourse, when this isn't better handled by {L_ cribe}.

You seem to suggest that the group of all bears brought up within a
discourse is important. It isn't. The individual groups brought up are
important (all bears in the forest, all bears who have died, or
whatever the current context suggests), but the group that is the
combination of all these is pretty much useless.


However, your {__ ro
> cribe} implements this
> usage, /and/ another usage - either "jump out
> of context", or "all
> ever" -- the former I consider basically the
> same as the first usage
> (and thus useless), the latter I implement with
> {L_ ro cribe}.

The standard {lo ro cribe} refers always and
everywhere, so far as I can tell, to all the
relevant bears in the context, but, notice, may
itself be part of setting that context, if the
domain is to shift with repect to bears.  Now,
the process of shifting domains is a tricky one,
as are all oves involving the Gricean
conversational conventions, and we have to pick
our way through them with care.  You have shown
in other places that you are aware of the
minefield and have done some picking -- not, I
think totally accurately, but usefully for making
your point. Starting with the bears currently in
the zoo, who are in the instant case clearly in
the domain, we want to jump to, say, all
currently existing bears.  So we say {lo ro cribe
poi zasti}.  This might, of course, be to
restrict the previous range of bears to the
existing ones (it previously included some
defunct and some imaginary ones, and so on), but
the speaker (and presumably the rest of the
conversants) hold that domain was already only
existing bears (the question "Did you see all of
them?" pretty much sets that in place), so this
is an expansion of the domain.  If this does not


Right, you have to say something that would be nonsensical within the
current context (a.k.a. domain) in order to indicate that you're
moving into some new domain. This is a hack. Observe my strategy for
moving between domains halfway through my last response to xorxes.
There's no guesswork on the listener's part, no need for hacks.


>
> Yep. These factors are used to help the
> listener pick out which things
> are being spoken of. Another (or at least
> another use of) context is
> using it to place things relative to it: if we
> didn't have this
> context, we wouldn't know what "now", or
> "before", or "tomorrow", or
> "here" meant, because they're all relative to
> the current context. The
> latter is necessary just about always, but the
> former is only
> necessary when you aren't being precise enough
> (when you aren't
> restricting enough).

Actually, in the theory, moist of these examples
are relative not to the whole context but only to
the occasion of utterance, a relatively
controllable component of the context.



Sure. My point is that they're part of the setting-context, and not
the domain-context.


> When I say "this pen here-now on my table is
> blue", I use relative
> context (the latter), and disambiguating
> context is unnecessary
> altogether.

I don't see the point here (though I am glad to
see that specificity is no longer a part of the


Hehe. I've by no means abandoned it. We'll get back to this alleged
specificity when this is over.


issue).  I can often be precise enough to get
down to a single possible referent within the
context (the occasion of utterance is a part of
the context, after all, however separately
treatable). Are you saying only that we can
always (a rather risky claim, so "usually")
specify the referent of an expression uniquely,
so that there is no possibility of anyone being
in any doubt.   Given the things one can doubt if


Yes, my inner {ro} would leave the listener without any doubt.


one sets one's mind to it, I'll withdraw that
last bit, but surely we can specify so thoroughly
that all reasonable uncertainties are assuaged.
Sure. We don't usually go to such extremes,
however, unless forced to it by the failure of
more normal means.


If your normal means fail, you lack the facility for this sort of
precision. I try to show this in my caged bears example.


To unsubscribe from this list, send mail to lojban-list-request@lojban.org
with the subject unsubscribe, or go to http://www.lojban.org/lsg2/, or if
you're really stuck, send mail to secretary@lojban.org for help.