[lojban] Re: Usage of lo and le

[John E Clifford <lojban-out@lojban.org>]

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

> 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.

Goodness, why?  I took you to be arguing that
this position was incompatible with something
every one does hold, but that we held to this one
too.  Now it turns out that you are the one
holding incompatible positions -- by your own
argument.  This is all very strange.

> >
> > > <<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?

Since I am now very worried about what you mean,
I am leery of agreeing with you about anything. 
But, yees, following the flow of discourse is a
large part of the way a speaker understands the
less than explicit parts of the conversation.

> 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.

That is, we force the speaker to go against the
linguistic habits of the last at least ten
thousand years and not leave out anything that
could possibly be needed to fix those previously
implicit parts of the conversation.  I am not
surte that is possible in general, but it can be
done in some particular (and I think rather
peculiar) cases.  And, if it could be done, it
would surely get rid of all problems in
conversation -- because it would get rid of all
conversation.  No one is going to do all that,
especially since so much of it is demonstrably
unnecessary (we get along just fine, thank you). 

> >
> > > > 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.

No one said it was; it is just one of a number of
pretty nearly equally good approaches.  And there
are a lot moe where those came from.  Words very
rarely require clarification -- "rarely" at least
against the number of ways that they *could* be
misunderstood.  There is scarcely an English
sentence that is not vague to something like two
to the number of words it contains (I forget the
usual figure). Yet how often do we have to stop
and run through the possibilities to find the one
intended?  I can only remeber one case so far
today, and that was when you were trying to
explain why we might need to do this.
 
> I was stating that your definition fails under
> my example, not that
> humans are incapable of circumventing such
> failures.

My definition of what ?  I don't remember
defining anything.  And which of your examples? 
I am afraid I am lost again here.  The thing
about the collapse from inconsistencies is that
they can't be circumvented, so, since you agree
that we can circumvent problems, we are not faced
with an inconsistency.  It might be an
inconvenience: we can (fairly easily in theory)
go astray in our understanding of what someone
says to us (or they can with what we say).  we
should perhaps have a way to prevent that
happening -- better than the ones we have, which
can fail and require further moves and so on. But
it is not obvious that there is a better way in
general and certainly that there is a better way
that does not bog conversation down in usually
pointless prolxity.
 
> What I mean by inconsistent is that you use
> Position 1 when it suits
> you. 

I don't think I ever use position 1 or, if I do,
I do so in contexts that require it as the
relevant domain (those theoretical jags of
logicians and philosophers.  I have already
apologized if doing that misled you into thinking
that was the usual sense of an expression like
{lo ro cribe}.) I suppose that when I am in that
context using that position does suit me, it
being the usual one there.

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.

Wait.  Is it that you support position 1 but not
position 2? But no, you say you want to include
both.  I -- because I support position 2, "the
domain is determined by context" -- have a place
for the effective part of position 1, the
occasions when {lo ro cribe} means all possible
-- and impossible -- bears (every English
description including the word "bear" (Lojban,
{cribe}) has a referent in this domain -- maybe
even a distinct one).  That is what I use when
talking with philosophers and logicians about
concepts and their extensions.  I don't need
anywhere else I can think of, so it rarely turns
out to be a problem, though I suppose, if we want
to get rid of all ambiguities, it has to be dealt
with even when I want to continue a talk about
the bears in the zoo.

   
> > >
> > > 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.

This looks dangerously like either implicit
quantifiers, which have their turn and been
pushed out, or else the strange situation of
explicitly requiring an "all" marked by the
absence of any "all" word.  And, of course, it
looks to go against established usage.  Which
meaning is this one again?  Is it that this
continues the established domain and refers to
every member of that domain.  If so, perhaps it
does not go against established usage, but that
is in some dispute (which this does nothing to
resolve).  

> > 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.

No, not at all.  When that is the way things go,
what {lo cribe} is about (it does not pick out
anything -- it is not {le} even then) is some
relevant bears, not necessarily all of them --
and no specified ones at that. I don't think that
going off to talk about a few of the relevant
bears makes the rest irrelevant, theyare just not
the ones were are talking about at the moment. 
but we can get back to them with a minimum of
effort.

> 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}.

Better than what? {lo cribe}? {lo ro cribe}? I am
not sure that we need to say that all relevant
bears are all the ones brought up in the course
of the conversation.  It seems to me that it is
often the case that there are relevant bears that
have never been mentioned and that some mentioned
a long time ago may have ceased to be relevant. 
But, if we did want to talk about just those then
"all the bears we've mentioned so far in tis
conversation" does it quite unambigously, whereas
{L_ cribe} -- which is not even a phrase yet,
what will it actually look like -- does not
clearly mean that (or anything else, now that you
seem to have both claimed and rejected both
position 1 and position 2.If {L_ cribe} is a new
phrase, why do we need it; if it is an old
phrase, why should we change?

> You seem to suggest that the group of all bears
> brought up within a
> discourse is important. It isn't. The
> individual 
=== message truncated ===
<<You seem to suggest that the group of all bears
brought up within a
discourse is important. It isn't.>>

Never? Not usually? It seems to be a good guide
at least to what the current domain is.

 <<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.>>

Ah!  You mean that lumping them all together
somehow is not important.  That does seem right
-- I think we were caught in an
individual-species ambiguity.

<<> 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)>> 

The domain is not the context, it is rather the
set (or whatever) of things relevant in the
context.

"Nonsensical" is a little strong.  It does
violate a convention to restate the obvious, as
this would do if I meant to refer to the
currently relevant bears.  since I am assuming
that no conventions are being violated (always
the proper assumption until the evidence
overwhelms you) it must not be stating the
obvious and so saying something new.  To call
this nonsensical is to miss the role that it
plays constantly in conversation; this is a
standard way of changing domains (and context).

<<in order to indicate that you're
moving into some new domain. This is a hack.>> 

For what?  It is a standard move and has been for
countless ages past.  What is the real move we
keep not using and how did weveryone miss it
until you came along?

<<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.>>

I don't read your stuff to xorxes as carefully as
I ought, I suppose. (I figure he can more than
take care of himself.) What did you do if not
spell out exactly (as much as need be) where you
wanted to go.  Maybe your case did not involve
repeating anything obvious, but the move is still
essntially the same.  and thus, I suppose,
another hack.  On the other hand, if you did not
spell out where to go, how does your move get you
there?

<<> >
> > 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, most 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.>>

What exactly (Hell, approximately) is the
distinction here.  I just haven't seen thise
terms before, so far as I can remember.
 

<<> > 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.>>

I am sorry to hear that.  You seem to
misunderstand that notion even more than you
misunderstand the use of descriptions in Lojban.

> 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.>>

Whoa, I thought we were talking about things like
"this pen here now," what has {ro} to do with
that.  And if {ro} leaves the listener with no
doubts, then what is the problem.  Well, except
that I often do not want to talk about all of the
domain and so, presumably, some doubts -- more
than the inspecificity of {lo} -- can arise.


<<> 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.>>

But of course you failed to show it, precisely
because you could set up the example.  All that
is needed now is the (possibly extraordinary --
but I don't really think so ) step of copying out
what you did in setting up the example to
describe the case.  Pop!


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.