From pycyn@aol.com Thu Apr 19 13:36:50 2001 Return-Path: X-Sender: Pycyn@aol.com X-Apparently-To: lojban@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-7_1_2); 19 Apr 2001 20:36:50 -0000 Received: (qmail 27692 invoked from network); 19 Apr 2001 20:36:48 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.142) by m8.onelist.org with QMQP; 19 Apr 2001 20:36:48 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO imo-m09.mx.aol.com) (64.12.136.164) by mta3 with SMTP; 19 Apr 2001 20:36:48 -0000 Received: from Pycyn@aol.com by imo-m09.mx.aol.com (mail_out_v29.14.) id r.55.1456ecdb (1769) for ; Thu, 19 Apr 2001 16:36:43 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <55.1456ecdb.2810a65a@aol.com> Date: Thu, 19 Apr 2001 16:36:42 EDT Subject: RE: not only To: lojban@yahoogroups.com MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="part1_55.1456ecdb.2810a65a_boundary" Content-Disposition: Inline X-Mailer: AOL 6.0 for Windows US sub 10519 From: pycyn@aol.com --part1_55.1456ecdb.2810a65a_boundary Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable In a message dated 4/19/2001 12:11:01 PM Central Daylight Time,=20 rlpowell@digitalkingdom.org writes: > However, I would certainly add something clarifying such entailment to a > lojbanic version, because if the member of the named class does not > conform to the condition, this seems to me to be equivalent to referring > to a black-painted house as le blabi zdani because once you saw a cat > that lives there chasing a white dog. =A0Unless your listener has that > context, or the sentence has a zo'o or je'unai in it, this is > obstructionist and obnoxious behaviour that results in no communication. > Why the _hell_ are you mentioning that only your wife likes olives if > she does not, in fact, like olives? >=20 About as good a statement of how an implicature (not an implcation, by the= =20 way) works as is likely to come along. =A0=A0I am committed, as a cooperati= ng=20 interlocutor, to saying all and only what is relevant and known. =A0If, in = a=20 discussion of olive liking (wherer do these unlikely examples come from?) I= =20 say "In my family only my wife likes olives" and leave it at that, then=20 either she likes olives or I have failed to be a cooperative interlocutor,= =20 since I could have said "No one in my family likes olives" if even my wife= =20 does not. =A0But being a cooperative interlocutor does not mean one has to = be a=20 boring one or even a very nice one, so I can fulfill my task by adding --as= I=20 am wont to do, alas -- "and even she doesn't like them". =A0My duty is done= and=20 I have given everybody a little jolt, compensating for the fact that no one= =20 shakes my hand anymore after the unfortunate miswired joybuzzer incident=20 (fictitious). =A0I am not as mean in this as the imagined house-namer, thou= gh=20 even he is within his rights, but setting up for a hell of a {ta'u ma} =A0(= I=20 knew a couple who had a pure white dog named Spot -- because he was a pure= =20 white spot on any scene he entered). =A0 As for putting in a {zo'o}, if they can't get a joke, fuck3'em. Of course, now that we have established what triggers these kinds of=20 implicatures (and it does not actually have to be designated individuals), = we=20 have the warning already in place: Lojban needs to do no more that English,= =20 etc. does -- avoid practical jokers and logicians. On the other hand, if you really want to make something of it all, you have= =20 {po'o} which is a floating disaster at the moment. =A0If you use it only as= =20 though it were a quantifier (since it is UI, it can occur anywhere and so c= an=20 occur anyhwere PA can -- though in the middle of string of digits is a litt= le=20 odd) or to write some rules for it to assure that every use of it could be= =20 changed into a quantifier form, then you would have an "only" that carried= =20 the exemplification condition that you feel is needed. =A0I rather like tha= t=20 idea actually, since it allows me to get my universal with existential impo= rt=20 in (the existential import of universals may, in fact, be only an=20 implicature, too, but it got embedded in logic at the beginning and has bee= n=20 hard to shake -- and it distinguishes two class of universals in English, s= o=20 it has some practical values as well). =A0 --part1_55.1456ecdb.2810a65a_boundary Content-Type: text/html; charset="ISO-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable In a message dated 4/19/2001 12:11:01 PM Central Daylight Time,=20
rlpowell@digitalkingdom.org writes:



However, I would certainl= y add something clarifying such entailment to a
lojbanic version, because if the member of the named class does not
conform to the condition, this seems to me to be equivalent to referrin= g
to a black-painted house as le blabi zdani because once you saw a cat
that lives there chasing a white dog. =A0Unless your listener has that
context, or the sentence has a zo'o or je'unai in it, this is
obstructionist and obnoxious behaviour that results in no communication= .
Why the _hell_ are you mentioning that only your wife likes olives if
she does not, in fact, like olives?




About as good a statement of how an implicature (not an implcation, by = the=20
way) works as is likely to come along. =A0=A0I am committed, as a coope= rating=20
interlocutor, to saying all and only what is relevant and known. =A0If,= in a=20
discussion of olive liking (wherer do these unlikely examples come from= ?) I=20
say "In my family only my wife likes olives" and leave it at that, then= =20
either she likes olives or I have failed to be a cooperative interlocut= or,=20
since I could have said "No one in my family likes olives" if even my w= ife=20
does not. =A0But being a cooperative interlocutor does not mean one has= to be a=20
boring one or even a very nice one, so I can fulfill my task by adding = --as I=20
am wont to do, alas -- "and even she doesn't like them". =A0My duty is = done and=20
I have given everybody a little jolt, compensating for the fact that no= one=20
shakes my hand anymore after the unfortunate miswired joybuzzer inciden= t=20
(fictitious). =A0I am not as mean in this as the imagined house-namer, = though=20
even he is within his rights, but setting up for a hell of a {ta'u ma} = =A0(I=20
knew a couple who had a pure white dog named Spot -- because he was a p= ure=20
white spot on any scene he entered). =A0
As for putting in a {zo'o}, if they can't get a joke, fuck3'em.
Of course, now that we have established what triggers these kinds of=20
implicatures (and it does not actually have to be designated individual= s), we=20
have the warning already in place: Lojban needs to do no more that Engl= ish,=20
etc. does -- avoid practical jokers and logicians.
On the other hand, if you really want to make something of it all, you = have=20
{po'o} which is a floating disaster at the moment. =A0If you use it onl= y as=20
though it were a quantifier (since it is UI, it can occur anywhere and = so can=20
occur anyhwere PA can -- though in the middle of string of digits is a = little=20
odd) or to write some rules for it to assure that every use of it could= be=20
changed into a quantifier form, then you would have an "only" that carr= ied=20
the exemplification condition that you feel is needed. =A0I rather like= that=20
idea actually, since it allows me to get my universal with existential = import=20
in (the existential import of universals may, in fact, be only an=20
implicature, too, but it got embedded in logic at the beginning and has= been=20
hard to shake -- and it distinguishes two class of universals in Englis= h, so=20
it has some practical values as well). =A0 --part1_55.1456ecdb.2810a65a_boundary--