Re: [lojban] Re: [lojban-beginners] Re: mi kakne lo bajra

[John E Clifford <kali9putra@yahoo.com>]

----- Original Message ----
From: Jorge Llambías <jjllambias@gmail.com>
To: lojban@googlegroups.com
Sent: Sat, October 30, 2010 11:55:24 AM
Subject: Re: [lojban] Re: [lojban-beginners] Re: mi kakne lo bajra

On Sat, Oct 30, 2010 at 12:58 PM, John E Clifford <kali9putra@yahoo.com> wrote:
> Raising is always a risky business, because it appears to involve moving items
> from a subordinate, temporary universes of discourse into the main one.

So it does, but there's nothing special about raising in that. There
are plenty of other ways of doing it that don't involve raising. For
example:

    la djan cu jinvi lo du'u zasti kei lo cevni
    "John thinks about gods that (they) exist."

By saying that, we have introduced gods into the universe of discourse
through raising.

But if we say instead:

    la djan cu jinvi lo du'u lo cevni cu zasti .i la djan cu so'e roi
tavla mi lo cevni
    "John thinks gods exist. John often talks to me about gods."

No raising there, but we have also introduced gods into the universe
of discourse.

Introducing things into the universe of discourse is something we all
do all the time, whenever we speak. It's part and parcel of what
speaking is all about.

I agree that we introduce things into the universe of discourse, but not that we 
do it casually, in wishes or quotations, or the like.  Such a remark may be the 
occasion for such a change, but not the change in and of itself. To change the 
main universe of discourse requires the collaboration of the interlocutors, 
which must be consciously and overtly given.  Exactly what constitutes that 
shift is problematic, which is another reason why raising is risky.  For 
example, your second example, second sentence -- which does involve raising -- 
probably does bring them into the discussion.  But it is still open to the other 
conversant to say "But there are no gods, so we should lock him away."

> If I
> say "I want for me to ride a unicorn", say, I am not at all put off by the
> objection "There are no unicorns" because the unicorn I want is buried in a 
>pair
> of worlds which pertain to two different counterfactual conditonals and so 
have
> nothing to the universe of present discourse.  If I say, on the other hand
> (assuming English is something like a logical language :)),

Being a logical language has nothing to do with it. You're talking
about ontology, not about logic. "There are no unicorns, so you can't
want one" is an ontological objection, not a logical one. And a silly
one at that, from someone who thinks that it is only possible to talk
about things that exist in the real/material world.

Note that i did not say what you find an objection.  I said that it was risky to 
move something from a subordinate universe to the main one.  The reason why it 
is risky is that it invalidates what appear to be normally valid arguments: a 
matter of logic.

> "I want a unicorn
> for me to ride", I seem to be saying that there are unicorns (in the present
> domain) and I want one of them to ride. The claim that there aren't any is 
then
> false, even though the interlocutor has believed it true and has not agreed to
> an expansion, as required by the rules of conversation.

"Sorry, there aren't any here", or "there aren't any in this world" or
"sorry, but unicorns don't exist" is a perfectly legitimate and true
answer. "Universe of discourse" is not the same as "the material
universe in which we exist".

Again, I carefully didn't say any of that, unless you mean by "here" or "in this 
world" the universe of discourse, in which case, I do mean that and these 
constitute a rejection of the raised form (if true).   

> Indeed, his remark
> might well be a reminder that the universe of the dialog does not encompass
> unicorns (whatever may happen in wish-worlds and the like).

The universe which the dialogue is about encompasses them as soon as
they are mentioned. That of course does not mean that the universe in
which the dialogue takes place suddenly encompasses unicorns.
Unfortunately it doesn't work like that. You can't create things into
existence just by talking about them. But "the universe of the
dialogue" is ambiguous, you know it, and yet you relish bringing it up
every time. Why?

The point is simply that merely saying some words not only does not bring things 
into existence (which I never claimed it did) but also does not bring them into 
the domain from which the referents of terms in the conversation are drawn.  If 
I want a unicorn, that does not mean that there has to be a unicorn in the 
domain of referents in my conversation.  In fact, it means that, whatever 
referent there may be for the term is buried away in several stages of world 
shifting (moving to new domains of reference) which do not -- unless the 
conversation turns that way -- have to affect the domain of the conversation at 
all (by the way, for me, the expression "universe of discourse" is not 
ambiguous). And, even if it does, the new expanded domain need not contain any 
of the items that were in the domain in which the wished unicorn resided.

> Further, the new
> form implies that there is a unicorn I want to ride and that, even in the
> expanded domain, is false, since no one unicorn is singled out by my desire, 
>but
> rather any one will do.

I will not get drawn into that one this time.

Too, bad.  It's probably the weak point in the standard case.  But, of course, 
it is true under the standard rules.

> There are other problems, about the laws of identity
> and the like that this move can give rise to.  So, as a general rule, don't
> raise unless you are sure the referent of what you raise is already set up to 
>be
> talked about.

In other words, "don't ever speak"? Or just "don't ever speak in Lojban"?
How do you set up something to be talked about other than by mentioning it?

Well, you can mention it directly (though that is, admittedly, hard to do for 
things not in the basic domain) or you can otherwise indicate where you want the 
discussion to go.  Not every place in every relation raises problems, but a 
fairly large -- and diverse -- set do and need (especially in a logical 
language) to be treated carefully.

mu'o mi'e xorxes

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"lojban" group.
To post to this group, send email to lojban@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to 
lojban+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at 
http://groups.google.com/group/lojban?hl=en.


      

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "lojban" group.
To post to this group, send email to lojban@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to lojban+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/lojban?hl=en.