From pycyn@aol.com Tue Oct 02 07:48:33 2001 Return-Path: X-Sender: Pycyn@aol.com X-Apparently-To: lojban@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-7_4_1); 2 Oct 2001 14:47:04 -0000 Received: (qmail 59643 invoked from network); 2 Oct 2001 14:47:04 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.26) by 10.1.1.223 with QMQP; 2 Oct 2001 14:47:04 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO imo-d04.mx.aol.com) (205.188.157.36) by mta1 with SMTP; 2 Oct 2001 14:48:33 -0000 Received: from Pycyn@aol.com by imo-d04.mx.aol.com (mail_out_v31_r1.7.) id r.14a.1e31f2d (4542) for ; Tue, 2 Oct 2001 10:48:29 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <14a.1e31f2d.28eb2dbd@aol.com> Date: Tue, 2 Oct 2001 10:48:29 EDT Subject: Re: [lojban] zo'e interpretation To: lojban@yahoogroups.com MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="part1_14a.1e31f2d.28eb2dbd_boundary" X-Mailer: AOL 6.0 for Windows US sub 10535 From: pycyn@aol.com --part1_14a.1e31f2d.28eb2dbd_boundary Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Thank you for the kind words. I will look forward to your further comments. Are there any now that might help shape the form of the enxt couple of sections: quantifiers and descriptions at a current guess? I do agree that the standards set are too high, but I note that I did not set them; I just report what is said. They fall, as you might expect, just because the gricean factors defeat their actual application in real situations. As for {zo'e} as a case, I think that most of the sorts of things that are said various places in Refgram and the lists would work fine: "a typical thing," "the usual thing," or even just "something" without cluttering up the bound variables (tightest scope and not reprieves). In a message dated 10/2/2001 9:29:44 AM Central Daylight Time, arosta@uclan.ac.uk writes: > We agree that no rules that must substitute for Gricean processes will work > for this problem or for any another; no grammar can ever be elaborate > enough to fully determine utterance interpretation. > > I think, and I think you agree with me, that it is possible to have a rule > that always gives zo'e a determinate sentence-meaning at the level of What > Is Said, so long as we recognize that such a sentence meaning is then input > to inferential Gricean processes that are beyond the scope of rules and > grammar. > > Since all of the language is in that situation (i.e. however determinate the > sentence meaning, it is always thereafter at the mercy of pragmatics), I > don't see an interpretation rule for zo'e as being any more fragile than > other interpretation rules. So the standards you are setting for what would > count > as a viable zo'e interpretation rule seem unfairly high. > > But this is only one small quibble about a document that was in all other > respects nothing but useful. (I did have further comments and questions, > but planned to save them until further instalments appear and until the > current debates get less hectic.) > > --And. > --part1_14a.1e31f2d.28eb2dbd_boundary Content-Type: text/html; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Thank you for the kind words.  I will look forward to your further comments.  Are there any now that might help shape the form of the enxt couple of sections: quantifiers and descriptions at a current guess?

I do agree that the standards set are too high, but I note that I did not set them; I just report what is said.  They fall, as you might expect, just because the gricean factors defeat their actual application in real situations.  

As for {zo'e} as a case, I think that most of the sorts of things that are said various places in Refgram and the lists would work fine: "a typical thing," "the usual thing," or even just "something" without cluttering up the bound variables (tightest scope and not reprieves).







In a message dated 10/2/2001 9:29:44 AM Central Daylight Time, arosta@uclan.ac.uk writes:


We agree that no rules that must substitute for Gricean processes will work
for this problem or for any another; no grammar can ever be elaborate enough to fully determine utterance interpretation.

I think, and I think you agree with me, that it is possible to have a rule that always gives zo'e a determinate sentence-meaning at the level of What Is Said, so long as we recognize that such a sentence meaning is then input to inferential Gricean processes that are beyond the scope of rules and
grammar.

Since all of the language is in that situation (i.e. however determinate the
sentence meaning, it is always thereafter at the mercy of pragmatics), I don't see an interpretation rule for zo'e as being any more fragile than other interpretation rules. So the standards you are setting for what would count
as a viable zo'e interpretation rule seem unfairly high.

But this is only one small quibble about a document that was in all other respects nothing but useful. (I did have further comments and questions, but planned to save them until further instalments appear and until the current debates get less hectic.)

--And.


--part1_14a.1e31f2d.28eb2dbd_boundary--