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

[John E Clifford <clifford-j@sbcglobal.net>]

MK?s proposal in a nutshell.  (For corrections,
additions, explanations, etc.)

1.	1.     Lojban?s method of introducing new
referents is inefficient, ineffective and
incomplete.
Lojban descriptions depend upon unmentioned
factor  which conversants infer from the flow of
the discourse and from the physical environment
in which the discourse occurs.  In particular,
the set of things having a mentioned property is
restricted to those things of that sort that are
relevant to the discourse at the moment.  The
inferences involved in correctly identifying the
referent of a given description may be long and
complex and the factors on which they are based
may not be obvious to all the conversants.  Thus,
there is a strong possibility that the referent
will be missed, requiring further discussion to
correct the mistake.  But especially, this
relativization of reference makes it impossible
to refer to the things which have the property in
question but are not relevant to the discourse so
far, forr example, to jump from the bears we have
been talking about to all bears absolutely (ever,
existent, imaginary, merely possible, etc.) or
even just all in the area, including those we
have not been talking about.


2.      In every situation (a discourse carried
on in a given environment), for any object or
group of objects, there is a description  that
applies (and will be seen to apply) to exactly
that object or group.  Further, this description
does not rely on the flow of discourse  and
relies on the environment only for ostention;
that is, it relies only on overtly mentioned
properties and deixis.  It thus avoids the
difficulties that make Lojban descriptions so
fallible.  And, being not relativized to the
discourse, it can introduce things that are not
already relevant to this discourse.


3.       Lojban needs a way to use these
descriptions (?complete descriptions?) clearly
marked as such.  Since these descriptions tend to
be longer than the ones Lojban ordinarily uses,
and the ordinary ones work well enough for
ordinary cases (when we mean to stay within the
already given bounds of relevance), Lojban should
keep most of it present descriptions for the
ordinary cases, but some redundant or little used
form should be set aside for complete
descriptions.


4.       The form {lo ro broda} is redundant for
relativized descriptions and so could be used for
 complete ones (and only for them).  In
relativized descriptions, {lo ro broda} refers to
all the brodas relevent to the discourse so far,
but this is just what {lo broda} refers to in
relativized descriptions.  Further, since a
complete description exactly specifies its
referent, we are indeed interested in all such
things.  The expression {lo ro broda} would thus
be accurate in terms of Lojban meaning, which the
present, relativized, {lo ro broda} is not: in
the latter {ro} does not mean ?all? but ?all
relevant ones? or some such.


5.      So, Lojban should adopt the convention
that {lo ro broda} indicates that {broda} (which
may be complex, of course) is a complete
description of the intended referent.  And,
wherever the using a relativized description
involves vagueness or ambiguity ? or even just
complications that extend the needed inferences
unduly -- in the background on which description,
complete descriptions should be used instead. 
And, of course, always for cases where the domain
of relevance in aa discourse is being changed,
whether by restriction or expansion.

 A.    Tied in with this, though not essential to
it, is the claim that, for every property, P,
there is a set (or whatever) of all the things
that have (now, at some other time, in the realm
of possibility, ?)  and that this set (?) is the
referent of {lo ro P} (as corrected by the
proposal).  Relativized descriptions may be made
complete by explicit restrictions carvving out
subsets of this set. 



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.