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

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

On 5/20/06, Jorge Llambías <jjllambias@gmail.com> wrote:

On 5/19/06, Maxim Katcharov <maxim.katcharov@gmail.com> wrote:
[...]
> "Unless you're dealing within a {zasti}-type relationship, zasti is
> implicitly added as a restriction." This rule that I defined has
> nothing to do with context, it's more like a rule of grammar than
> anything.
[...]
> Adding a sticky tense or redefining
> a word has nothing to do with context. Context originates from things
> that we say, stickyness and redefinitions originate from what we say.
> Stickyness and redefinitions do not originate from context.

For me, both of these are instances of context. In any case, it doesn't
really matter whether we call it "context" or something else. The important


I think it does. The definitions were laid out in the first post of
this thread (and then later I laid them out more extensively), and if
we're not going to stick to them, we're going to have a hard time
understanding each other.


thing is that in at least in those two cases the referent of {lo ro cribe} will
change because of things said in a different part of the discourse. So


It does matter if the word "context" is ambiguous. What you *were*
saying was "context (referents and concepts brought up or implied in
the course of discussion) affects the definition of words". Now you
seem to be saying "context (each word including cmavo previously used
to do something) affect the definition of words". The former is false,
the latter is true.


those two at least are cases where our positions coincide. We can start
from there.

Now, what exactly counts as a zasti-type relationship?

     ze'i lo ro cribe cu zasti


"for a short time, an unspecified amout of all hypothetical bears exist"

(when I say "hypothetical bears", I mean the bear mega-set.)


     "Not all bears exist."


ronai lo ro cribe cu zasti

"not all of the entire hypothetical bear-mega-set will exist"


     mi pu viska lo pixra skina i lo ro cribe pe ri cu dasni lo mapku
     "I saw a cartoon. All bears in it wore hats."


This specific {pe ri} is what I would consider a zasti-type. I deduce
from context that it means "...that existed in the perceptual-universe
of the cartoon".



Would you agree with those usages? In the first case, {zasti} is a
zasti-type relationship, so {lo ro cribe} includes non-existing bears.
In the second case, I would say {lo ro cribe} also must include
non-existing bears, but is {dasni} a zasti-type relationship?


{dasni} is not a zasti-type.



As for stickyness, consider these three situations:

(1) A formal agreement such as
<http://www.grrb.nt.ca/pdf/wildlife/grizzly/Grizzly%20Bear%20Management%202002.pdf>
where {lo ro cribe poi se catra lo prenu} would be licensed
by the formal definitions at the beginning of the agreement.

(2) A semi-formal situation where for example an instructor with a prepared
speech explains the agreement to a group of people. They may start their
talk by saying: "In what follows, when I say 'bear' I will mean the grizzly
bears at GSA" and so on.


I'd like a restrictive sticky to exist in Lojban. Like if I say {lo
cribe poiki dasni lo mapku}, from now on when I say {lo cribe} I mean
that it's bears restricted to ones that wear hats. I think that it
would be useful.



(3) An informal situation: "You're new here, right? OK, then you have to know
this: all bears killed by people must be accounted for, no exceptions are
admitted".


In this case I wouldn't use {ro}/"all": "...know this: bears killed by
people...", or I'd probably say something like "all bears killed here
must be accounted for", to which they may reply "disambiguate 'here'",
to which I'd reply "lo Wasomething Settlement".



Now, if I understand the proposal correctly, you would not object to usages
(1) and (2), because the terms have been defined explicitly, but you would
object to using {lo ro cribe poi se catra lo prenu} in (3) because it relies
on common sense and context and not on something stated explicitly
in order to figure out the referent. Is that right?


Yes, quite correct.


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.