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

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

On 5/22/06, Jorge Llambías <jjllambias@gmail.com> wrote:

On 5/21/06, Maxim Katcharov <maxim.katcharov@gmail.com> wrote:

> > {ro} indicates that all things that count as brodas are being referred
> > to. Inner blank doesn't.
>
> "All" is turning out to be quite an ambiguous word. You probably don't
> mean "all (ever)", so do you mean "{ro} indicates that all things
> that, given the context, count as brodas are being referred to."?

I don't think we are on the same page on "ambiguous" yet, but yes,
I do think that what counts as a broda may vary from one context
to another.

For example, to show one difference between no inner quantifier and
inner {ro}:

     mi pu klama le zarci gi'e te vecnu lo mapku
     I went to the market and bought hats.

     mi pu klama le zarci gi'e te vecnu lo ro mapku
     I went to the market and bought all hats.



That's a very clear example. It seems that a blank inner for you means
"the most contextually sensible set", and an inner ro means "all of
the most contextually sensible set". I would think that this can be
said just as well with:

... L_ mapku - bought hats
... su'o L_ mapku - bought some hats
... ro L_ mapku - bought all hats

or do those have different meanings to you?


> There is no more context. I'm telling you that I want to say that, of
> all hypothetical things, concepts, - everything - that can ever be
> concieved by humans or otherwise, none of those things exist within
> the box. This is a very clear and unconvoluted thought: "nothing
> exists in the box". And I want to be able to express it as such,
> without having to constantly explain exactly what I mean, like I've
> been doing in every response since I brought the subject up.

For "nothing exists in the box", {no da zasti ne'i le tanxe} works just
fine, as far as I can tell. You don't need to explain anything.


That disguises the problem, but doesn't actually solve it.

{no da zasti ne'i le tanxe}
Zero things exist within the box.

How is that expanded? Let's have an "in no way restricting"
relationship called "X".

{lo no X cu zasti ne'i le tanxe}
all members in a set of 0 don't exist in the box (a non-statement)

{no lo X cu zasti ne'i le tanxe}
none of some contextually sensible group (!) are in the box

{no lo ro X cu zasti ne'i le tanxe}
none of all of (??) some contextually sensible group (!) are in the box

Of the last two, I'm using your definitions for the blank inner, and
for inner ro. I don't think that they're coming out as you intended.
You can't say that "none of all 'things' exist in the box", because
"all 'things'" is asserted by you to be inherently context-based: "all
'things' that are contextually sensible", and not actually "*all*
'things'" as I propose.



For "of all hypothetical things, concepts, - everything - that can ever
be concieved by humans or otherwise, none of those things exist within
the box" you would use a similarly longwinded expression. It would be


It's a simple concept that requires a long winded and incomplete
expression because no other is available.


a waste to have some short phrase like {no da} reserved for something
so precise, given that it is rarely if ever needed.


The fact that it's rarely if ever *used* is no indication that it's
rarely if ever *needed*. People may avoid these long and ultimately
incomplete descriptions, and use ambiguous terms instead. Perhaps they
mean to say it constantly, but these ambiguous terms are always
counted for them saying the other thing.

Regardless, this argument isn't as important as the whole {no da} thing above.


> How do you need context
> to determine what "me" refers to? You don't. Though you do need the
> *setting*, which is something very different.

(I do consider the setting to be part of the context of an utterance, but
leaving that aside) "me" refers to the speaker, and that's a pretty precise
thing indeed. That's not to say it's infinitely precise. For example:
"Look at me, not my feet" (that's an actual usage I got from Google).
Does looking at my feet count as looking at me? There is no definite,
absolutely certain answer valid for all contexts. Neither is one needed.



"Me" in the sense that we're talking about refers to the
consciousness/identity of a person. "Me" can, yes, refer to "my eyes",
or "my body". In some cases, it can even refer to a clone of your
identity: "you're me, and I'm you". But we're talking about "me" as in
"I", are we not?


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.