[lojban] Re: A (rather long) discussion of {all}

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

Well, as I have said occasionally, I have used it
in philosophical discussions (also logical and
linguistic), but even there it has to be spelled
out some way.  Just {lo ro broda} or "all brodas"
would not do if the scope of the discussion was
not well established.

--- Alex Martini <alexjm@umich.edu> wrote:

> [ li'o ]
> >
> > On 5/17/06, John E Clifford
> <clifford-j@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
> >> Contracts are, alas, rather cases of one of
> the
> >> sort of thing I am pointing out, namely that
> you
> >> cannot actually cover all the cases by a
> simple
> >> description (or a complex one for that
> matter).
> >> Consider a contract between a customer and a
> >> dairy  for the dairy to deliver two quarts
> of
> >> milk to the customer's home every Thursday. 
> One
> >> Thursday a tiger escaped from a circus and
> was
> >> roamin in the area of the customer's home
> and
> >> attacking people.  The dairy told its
> deliveryman
> >> not to deliver the customer's milk that day.
>  The
> >> customer sued for breach of contract
> (Thursday
> >> but no milk).  The court ruled for the
> defendant,
> >> saying that contract did not have to say
> "except
> >> on tiger days" for this to be an exception;
> tiger
> >> days just don't count as Thursdays for this
> >> contract.  The ruling was affirmed on
> appeal.
> >> Here is as unambiguous a description as
> possible
> >> and yet it too is relative to some
> interests,
> >> which interests  may not be dealt with
> beforehand.
> >
> > Despite the unrealistic use of "tiger days",
> I'll reply on your terms.
> > The court is stating that the restriction
> given, "all tuesdays", was
> > not the one intended. It's saying that both
> parties screwed up in
> > writing the contract. This is a result of the
> ambiguity of "all". If
> > the word "ool" was defined as "every single
> one. Yes, those too. NO
> > EXCEPTIONS", and it was used in a contract,
> how do you think that this
> > hypothetical court would have ruled? Speakers
> of a language with a
> > word like "ool" would be well versed in the
> dangers of using it, and
> > would indeed be better contract writers - I'm
> sure that you've heard
> > of clauses like
> >
> > "...on all tuesdays from [...] to [...]. The
> milk company reserves the
> > right to not serve milk on days that are
> unreasonable in the sole
> > judgement of the milk company."
> >
> > in real contracts, yes?
> >
> 
> This idea of 'absolutely all, with no
> exceptions whatsoever' as a  
> definition for 'all' seems to have been batted
> around a bit by this  
> point. I don't find that I use it in normal
> conversation -- does  
> anyone have a good example of actual usage in
> this way? (in context  
> would be better than more designed examples). I
> have a feeling that  
> it is really seldom, if ever, used. Even formal
> contracts have a  
> habit of tacking on restrictions during the
> negotiations.
> 
> ki'e mu'omi'e .aleks.
> 
> 
> 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.
> 
> 



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.