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

["Maxim Katcharov" <maxim.katcharov@gmail.com>]

On 5/22/06, Jorge Llambías <jjllambias@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 5/22/06, Maxim Katcharov <maxim.katcharov@gmail.com> wrote:
> > >
> > >      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?
>
> With the example as it stands it wouldn't make a significant difference,
> but if you add a nondistributive predicate (say "which filled my bag") then
> outer {ro} won't work, because it is not true that each of the hats filled
> the bag.

I think I see what you're getting at, but I don't quite follow. Could
you provide an example?

> > > 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.
>
> Right.
>
> > > 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.
>
> I don't think language works like that. When there is a need to express

Well, English has mandatory tenses, some languages don't have a word
for blue vs. green, but one that encompasses both. English solves the
tense problem by avoiding it, those other languages say "X like the
sky" or "X like the leaves" to refer to blue vs. green.

> something, people develop a way to express it, and frequent concepts
> acquire short expressions to go with them (Lojban's Zipf's law).
>
> But suppose you are right. All you have to do is use these words as you
> propose. If it turns out to be as useful as you expect, you will be imitated.
> I doubt any amount of theoretical argument will be convincing, but show
> by example how useful it can be and no doubt it, or something along the
> lines of it will be adopted.
>
> > > > 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.
> >
> > "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?
>
> I don't know, you brought it up. I thought you were saying that no context
> was necessary to figure out the referent of "me".

I should have been less ambiguous. The overall point is that you can
refer to at least something without requiring context
(context-context, not setting-context), so it is not true that you
need context for everything.


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.