[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
[lojban] Re: A (rather long) discussion of {all}
On 5/17/06, Maxim Katcharov <maxim.katcharov@gmail.com> wrote:
On 5/16/06, Jorge Llambías <jjllambias@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 5/16/06, Maxim Katcharov <maxim.katcharov@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > -1: Is there a complete, universal, fixed set of referents valid for any
> > > utterance and context, such that any given utterance will always pick its
> > > referents from that set (with suitable restrictions)?
> > If this set did not exist, what would the problem be?
>
> I don't think there is such thing, but you need it for the complete
> specification approach to work.
You also need it for "future bears" to work, and for "past bears" to
work in a way that isn't "such that are in our memories now".
No, those are {lo ba cribe} and {lo pu cribe}. In many contexts they
would not be candidate referents, so you would need the {ba} or the {pu}
to make them available. In some special contexts, they may be included
in {lo cribe}.
> Otherwise, in different contexts
You mean in different situations/settings, yes?
The situation/setting is always part of the context. I mean in different
occasions of use.
> your starting point for restrictions could be different and so you
> would end up with a different referent.
Well, given that the listener would know the setting (i.e. who mi is,
when it's happening, etc.), they should also know what the starting
point (out of the various ones) is, assuming that the starting point
varies at all, which it doesn't. (Which is why I asked why it would
matter.)
This is what I mean: In many/most contexts particles of dust won't
be available as possible referents without some extra work from the
speaker. So if you say {le tanxe cu vasru no da}, "the box contains
nothing", dust particles won't count as a disproof of the assertion. Of
course, any participant may bring dust particles into the discourse
and then they will have to be dealt with somehow, but until and unless
that happens, they don't count. You seem to want them to always count,
so that {le tanxe cu vasru no da} is practically always false.
Why is it wrong to use this hypothetical set that includes every
permutation of what could be a bear in every place at every time
[...]?
I wouldn't say it's wrong, I'd say it's humanly impossible.
{lamji} means "adjacent/beside/next to/in contact with". So even if
there was a that layer of dust or molecules, it would still make
sense. I see what you're getting at - at what point does something
become big enough to cause two things to not touch? At what point is
something no longer a bear? I would say that my {lamji} has my
absolute criteria, your {lamji} has your absolute criteria.
That's the point, I don't think there are such absolute criteria. I'm pretty
sure that the criteria are practically always adjusted by context.
This brings up a very interesting point: all words that you use are
inherantly non-veridical. If I see a group of things that represent
the various stages of a change from bear to table, I'll have a
definition of where things stop being a bear, and of where things
start being a table. And you have to use my definition. So if I tell
you {lamji cpana}, I mean it by my definition as it was at the time I
said it.
So yes, words can mean different things based on who said them.
And also when, where, and in what context, right? What you mean by
it in one utterance is not exactly identical to what you mean by it in
another utterance. There will of course be a _lot_ of commonalities,
a lot of overlap, that's why we say it's the same word with the same
meaning, and not a homonym, but it's not identical in an absolute sense.
There's a chance of a situation arising where what I think you meant
by bear isn't what you meant by bear. A very small chance, in contrast
to the chance that the context is ambiguous. I don't know how to solve
that problem, but this doesn't make my efforts to solve this problem
futile.
The way to solve it is to ask for further clarification until both parties are
satisfied that the misunderstanding has been cleared up.
> > > 1: Can a speaker actually restrict down to what their referant is?
> > > (i.e. "make a complete restriction"?)
> >
> > Yes, limited by their clarity-of-mind, intellect, and vocabulary.
>
> And would you say that there is at least potentially any
> human speaker with enough clarity of mind, intellect and
> vocabulary to restrict down to what their referent is in at
> least a significant number of cases?
Certainly. I sense a trap, and hope that it won't be one of technical
definition.
No, I meant it as a rhetorical question mostly. I don't think an absolute
restriction is humanly possible. A good enough restriction is certainly
possible and we do it all the time, but an absolutely fool-proof one
normally isn't.
If I've been talking about 20 certain bears, and I saw 2 of those
certain bears in a cage, and said "release {L_ ro cribe}" (your
definition), is it certain that I'm talking about all the bears in the
cage?
"Certain" in an absolute sense? No. But I would say it's the most
likely interpretation, yes, so certain for all practical purposes.
Maybe I'm talking about the three bears that I saw in the cage?
Possibley I'm talking about those two contextually sensible bears -
why would I care about the rest of the bears, after all? It doesn't
seem very certain to me at all. And again, look at all the
interpretations that aleks's speaker's sentances allowed.
Indeed, that's how language works. But you make it sound as more
uncertain than it normally is. Under normal circumstances none of
those less-than-absolute-certainties interfere with understanding.
> > which amounts to something like {__ ro
> > cribe poi [in the cage, and are in context¬ in context]},
>
> What??? Where did this "in the context & not in the context"
> come from? Certainly not from me. If they are a referent
> they are thereby in the context, this is a result of your
> interpretation, not a restriction used to get to the referent.
1 "Now, taking into account not just the twenty bears that we've been
talking about but other bears as well, ...".
2 "that we've been talking about" = "that are in the context of the
conversation" (i.e. "context" and not "setting")
3 "now, taking into account not just the twenty bears that are in the
context of the conversation, but also bears that are not in the
context of the conversation" ("other")
4 "X such that are bears, and such that are both in context and not in context"
"...are in context¬ in context"
or "...and are both those that we've been talking about and those that
we havn't been talking about", if 2 is wrong. Or did I mess that up
elsewhere?
Lojban can make the scope distinction pretty clearly:
lo ro cribe poi mi'o pu casnu ku'o .e lo ro cribe poi mi'o na pu
casnu (sensical)
lo ro cribe poi mi'o pu casnu gi'e nai casnu (nonsensical)
None of the bears was such that it was both talked about and not
talked about.
mu'o mi'e xorxes
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.