[lojban] Re: Usage of lo and le

19 views
Skip to first unread message

Maxim Katcharov

unread,
May 7, 2006, 10:04:18 PM5/7/06
to loj...@yahoogroups.com
On 5/7/06, Jorge Llamb�as <jjlla...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 5/7/06, Maxim Katcharov <maxim.k...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > ({xu (do) pu viska (lo ro cribe) (ca lo nu do vitke le dalpanka)}
> > >
> > > > In the above, wouldn't you mean {...ro lo cribe...}?
> > >
> > > You could say that too. In that case you would be emphasizing the
> > > distributivity. Something like "I'm asking about bears: did you see
> > > each one of them?"
> >
> > My notion was that your example would imply that you were asking me
> > "did you see that all the bears were indeed at the zoo?" (perhaps
> > going on to say "No? Well then you don't know if the zoo contains all
> > bears, do you?").
>
> It could be taken that way too, but I don't think it has to.
>
> >The point being that your inner ro is not restricted
> > by anything (like "the bears that were at the zoo"), while a blank
> > inner would leave it up to context. Your blank outer (if it doesn't
> > default to ro) implies that you could be asking about some and not all
> > of all bears (unrestricted). The intent of my correction was to say
> > something like "I'm asking about some type of bears (I'll leave it up
> > to context for you to know which): you see each of that group while
> > you visited the zoo? (aha, probably that-zoo-dwelling-bears)"
>
> Well, for me {lo ro cribe} simply refers to all bears, (whatever
> "all bears" is in the context), and then you say something about

Now that I've better formulated my thoughts regarding restriction, I
fully disagree. The use of an inner {ro} means that your restriction
is complete, and that context is no longer needed to determine what
your reference is.

> them. What you suggest could also be said more explicitly, for
> example:
>
> xu do pu viska lo nu lo ro cribe cu zvati le dalpanka
> Did you see that all bears were at the zoo?

Yes, though this fails to mention anything about a visit to the zoo,
as {xu (do) pu viska (lo ro cribe) (ca lo nu do vitke le dalpanka)}
does, though it may imply it.

>
> In any case, inner {ro} for me does not bring any connotations
> of the whole universe. Any contextual and unstated restriction for
> {lo cribe [poi zvati le dalpanka]} can also apply to
> {lo ro cribe [poi zvati le dalpanka]}
>

For me it says that I mean all bears (whole universe), but a normal
number in that place would /not/ be an assertion stating that that
many exist - these are /completely/ different.

> > "The typical bear eats berries" is handled (in whatever way) with
> > specifically {lo'e}, while "all bears eat berries" is handled
> > specifically with {ro lo ro} - this is an aside from the issue, but in
> > what case would you need a general term that covers both of these
> > without specifying which?
>
> I don't think it's so much a matter of need as one of convenience.
> You are not forced to make the distinction if you don't want to.

Alright, in what case would it be a convenience then?

> > > {lo} does not indicate anything more than conversion of a selbri
> > > into a sumti. If you want to indicate specificity explicitly, you need
> > > {le},
> >
> > It may be so that lo covers loi/lo'e (and of course ro lo ro), but
> > what is this specificity that le is necessary for?
>
> It's probably not necessary. There are many languages that manage
> very well without any articles after all. If context or other means are
> enough, you can just use {lo}.

I think that it is not necessary because this specificity is not
there. To say that other languages manage without articles implies
that I'm suggesting that we no longer handle a case that is useful
(taking articles out of lojban is taking a useful, even essential,
thing out of it), but I can't say that I know of the utility or even
existance of this specificity. It's not there, and yet we're handling
it, by distinguishing between le and lo on that basis (or something).

> > So, what does {lo vi cakla cu kukte} allow that {le vi cakla cu kukte} does not?
>
> {lo vi cakla} could be referring to the kind rather than the particular specimen
> I hold in my hand. "This chocolate" in English can be either.

A statement about the kind of chocolate would be done with a tanru
{[chocolate type]}. The proper form of the 'type' variant is "I like
this type of chocolate", the proper form of the normal variant is "I
like this chocolate (a mass noun)".

> > > xu do djica lo spisa be le cakla
> > > Do you want a bit of the chocolate?
> >
> > Same question for this...
>
> I may ask {xu do djica lo spisa be lo cakla} without having any chocolate.
> If you say yes, I might then have to go out and buy some. In that case
> I can't use {le} because there is no particular chocolate I'm referring to,
> I'm talking about chocolate in general.

This is the old version, where an assertion about existance is made implicitly.

> > > ko fairgau le cakla le zvati
> > > Distribute the chocolate among those present.
> >
> > ...and this.
>
> Same here. With {le} there is some particular chocolate I'm asking
> you to distribute.

In this case, (since you contrast it with the below) you'd restrict
the chocolate that you're referring to to chocolate that exists-here.

> With {lo} that might be the case too, but I may just be
> asking you to distribute chocolate among them without there being any
> around that I know of.

{ko fairgau le cakla le zvati} (distributor, shared-thing,
those-distributed-to.) is:

{ko fairgau le su'o cakla le su'o zvati} "distribute some chocolate to
things/events-presiding-somewhere". The context will restrict both the
chocolate and those present. If you have no chocolate, you probably
mean "enough-for-us chocolate out of all chocolate that exists". If
you have chocolate, you probably mean "all chocolate that is owned by
me". I can't think of a case where the context wouldn't make this all
obvious, but if there was, or if you just wanted to be explicit, then,
for example, you'd just restrict your referant to "that which is here,
now" in addition to the current restriction of "is-chocolate".


To unsubscribe from this list, send mail to lojban-li...@lojban.org
with the subject unsubscribe, or go to http://www.lojban.org/lsg2/, or if
you're really stuck, send mail to secr...@lojban.org for help.

Maxim Katcharov

unread,
May 12, 2006, 11:23:18 PM5/12/06
to lojba...@lojban.org
On 5/12/06, Jorge Llamb�as <jjlla...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 5/12/06, Maxim Katcharov <maxim.k...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > On 5/12/06, Jorge Llamb�as <jjlla...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > It would refer to anything that could relevantly
> > > be said to be a bear in the cage, and any other bear in the cage besides
> > > the ones we've been talking about before can certainly be relevantly said
> > > to be a bear in the cage from what you are saying.
> >
> > We havn't been talking about those bears before. This is the whole point.
>
> New relevant referents can and are constanly introduced in any
> conversation. "Relevant" does not mean "we've been talking about

They're introduced through a hack in which you have to find something
that makes no sense in the current context, which makes the listener
say "ah, ok... I guess he's talking about something else now, I
think".

> it". I don't really see what the problem is. If we've been talking

Consider: I've been talking to a zookeeper about 20 certain bears for
the past hour, and in fact, I'm in the middle of a sentence regarding
them just as we get to a somewhat filthy cage/habitat, in which I see
2 of those 20 bears. I say "take all the bears in the cage to the
infirmary for a checkup, right now". The zookeeper takes the two bears
out of the cage, and begins shutting the door. I stop him, and say
"take ALL the bears in the cage to the infirmary for a checkup". Is
the difference in meaning, and the utility of that difference
apparent? I hope that it is. This is the difference between position 1
and 2, and it's essential in, to give one example, contractual
writing. But really, it's useful anywhere that you want to explicitly
state what you mean, without having the listener guess based on
context (without having context get in the way of clear
communication).

> about twenty bears and now you want to talk about other bears as well,
> and you think I might be fixated on the twenty for some reason, then
> say something like: "Now, taking into account not just the twenty
> bears that we've been talking about but other bears as well, ..." I don't

Haha. So, if I want to talk of all bears in a cage, I'm going to have
to say {__ ro cribe poi [in the cage, and are in context&not in
context]}. I'm boggled that you'd even suggest this, when the method
I've presented is so much cleaner and more sensible. This method you
suggest, instead of fixing the problem, suggests that speakers simply
keep away from it, or "work around it".

I've been trying to make my examples quite general, but you show me
that general speech, even in Lojban (at least this aspect) has many
work-arounds.

This is much like insisting that nouns and verbs are all that is
needed to communicate (which is essentially true), and that this
concept of a predicate relationship (which nouns and verbs are
essentially based on/aspects of) is simply unneccisary. I mean, yeah,
you're right, but there's a better way to do it.

> think such extreme measures are called for very often, but they are
> always available.
>
> > > There is no universally fixed referent of "bears
> > > in that cage" that can be relied on for every possible context ever.
> >
> > Yes, there is: "all the bears in that cage now". How is this even
> > remotely ambiguous?
>
> I wouldn't say it's ambiguous. But I would say that every expression
> can eventually have different referents in different contexts. For example:
>
> "All the bears now in that cage are eating."
> (Probably the most common referent.)
>
> "If all the monkies in that cage were bears, then all the bears now in that cage
> would outnumber the rabbits."
> (A very odd referent.)
>
> And in any case, I don't know what your point is here. Even if
> "all the bears in that cage" would always and under all possible
> circumstances have one and the same referent, that wouldn't change
> the fact that countless other {lo ro broda} forms have more easily
> varying referents with context.

That's the point, they wouldn't have ambiguous referants. They'd all
have exacting referants, "all such that are bears, such that are in
this cage". Even "all such that are bears" would have an exacting
referant: all bears.

>
> > So you're saing that {L_ cribe} defaults to {L_ su'o cribe}, "some
> > relevant bears"?
>
> No, I oppose default quantifiers. I don't take {lo cribe} to have any
> implicit inner or outer quantifier. Inner {su'o} may look very harmless,
> but it can have many connotations that I don't really care for. I'm
> happier with no quantifier expressed meaning no quantifier implied.
>

Ok, let's consider that an inner {ro} emphasises that you mean all
relevant (/not/ all that have been mentioned, but only those relevant
to the sentance), and {su'o} means 'some of the relevant'. So, what
does a blank inner mean? It doesn't mean "nothing". It, to the
listener, means "those that are relevant here". Which sounds oddly
similar to an inner {ro}. Can you provide me an example that
illustrates the difference?

John E Clifford

unread,
May 12, 2006, 10:53:38 AM5/12/06
to lojba...@lojban.org
--- Maxim Katcharov <maxim.k...@gmail.com>
wrote:

> On 5/11/06, John E Clifford
> <cliff...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
> > Well, I am not sure how much more clearly
> since I
> > am not clear what the two approaches are that
> you
> > see as being used and as bsiing inconsistent
> with
> > one another. It seems to me that if the
> Lojban
>
> Quoting xorxes:
>
> <<Position 1: There is a determinate number of
> things that satisfy
> the predicate {cribe}, independent of any
> context whatsoever. Therefore
> in any context {lo ro cribe} refers to all and
> exactly those things.

But who exactly holds this? To be sure, we can
construct such a domain for special purposes, but
it is only the referent of {lo ro cribe} when
those purposes are activated. It happens that
logicians and philosophers have those purposes
often before them and so sometimes talk as tough
this were THE referent of {lo ro cribe}. It is
handy to talk this way to do their kinds of
things, but that does not affect what happens in
ordinary conversation -- even among philosophers
and logicians. Looking back, I see that (being
both) I have slipped occasionally into that
logician-philosopher talk to deal with extreme
cases (these being as extreme as possible,
presumably) but I even then can't find a place
where I said that this is what {lo ro cribe}
always means. If I did, it was accidental and I
apologize for the confusion it seems to have
caused (if I didn't, then I apologize for not
having caught on more quickly that this was the
confusion going on).

> Position 2: The things that satisfy any
> predicate may vary with
> context. In a given context {lo ro cribe}
> refers to all and exactly the
> things that in that context satisfy the
> predicate {cribe} (not just the
> things present where the speaker is, mind you,
> all the things that
> relevantly satisfy the predicate).>>

I think there may be some confusion in
terminology going on here, between what is in
context and what is relevant. I suspect I have
been using them interchangeably and xorxes seem
to be doing so, too, at least until recently.
The context involved and the relevance are both
features of the flow of conversation, not just
the physical location or the like; the domain of
discourse (which is again the things relevant in
the context) is ideational (or linguistic), not
physical or sensory, expands and contracts with
what is being said (and charting the exact flow
is not something that anyone has tried to do
beyond noting what is in or out at a given point
in the conversation -- and whether the steps have
been taken to assure that all conversants have
essentially the same view).

> > use of {ro} is inconsistent, then so is the
> > English use of "all," the main difference I
> see
>
> Yes, it is. Just like the English use of most
> English words is inconsistent.

This seems a very odd thing to say. It appears
to be either false -- since English shows no
signs of collapsing in the way that inconsistency
would be expected to create -- or to involve a
sense of "inconsistent" which is innocuous --
since generating none of the expected problems.
Does this mean anything more than that most
English words have several meanings and that we
need context to tell which meaning is in use? If
so, then I take back my remark about {ro} and
"all," since {ro} is not ambiguous in some ways
"all" is (mass v count, for example). And I find
this a very strange sense of "inconsistent."


> > being that we have tried to lay out the
> Lojban
> > use with some care, whereas -- linguists
> aside --
> > English speakers are pretty unaware what is
> going
> > on. {ro} (like "all") means everything (or
> the
> > named sort) in the domain of discoure. What
> is
>
> I understand this usage of {ro}, and my {L_
> cribe} (a lack of ro)
> implements this usage.

But, since it does not involve {ro}, it does not
implement that usage. Do you mean (I suppose you
do) that your expression {lo cribe} ({le} doesn't
really have a role in all this) says the same
thing as standard {lo ro cribe} (or, as you would
say, "{lo ro cribe} in this sense")? This flies
in the face of established Lojban usage, where
{lo cribe} is (loosely speaking, since this is an
area of controversy -- but your suggestion is not
in the range) an unspecified bunch of bears,
maybe one, maybe all, maybe somewhere in between,
and maybe some suprabear entity that is
represented by those things or functions
autonomously. In no case is it delimited as all
the relevent bears in the context.

However, your {__ ro
> cribe} implements this
> usage, /and/ another usage - either "jump out
> of context", or "all
> ever" -- the former I consider basically the
> same as the first usage
> (and thus useless), the latter I implement with
> {L_ ro cribe}.

The standard {lo ro cribe} refers always and
everywhere, so far as I can tell, to all the
relevant bears in the context, but, notice, may
itself be part of setting that context, if the
domain is to shift with repect to bears. Now,
the process of shifting domains is a tricky one,
as are all oves involving the Gricean
conversational conventions, and we have to pick
our way through them with care. You have shown
in other places that you are aware of the
minefield and have done some picking -- not, I
think totally accurately, but usefully for making
your point. Starting with the bears currently in
the zoo, who are in the instant case clearly in
the domain, we want to jump to, say, all
currently existing bears. So we say {lo ro cribe
poi zasti}. This might, of course, be to
restrict the previous range of bears to the
existing ones (it previously included some
defunct and some imaginary ones, and so on), but
the speaker (and presumably the rest of the
conversants) hold that domain was already only
existing bears (the question "Did you see all of
them?" pretty much sets that in place), so this
is an expansion of the domain. If this does not
work, then the description can be modified as
needed. the point ids that this new description
sets a new domain that is not necessarily
relativized to the previous domain -- or, at
least, aims to do that (it may fail, but that is
a practical matter, not a theoretical one --
though the theory has eventually to account for
the failure).

> > in that domain -- particularly of the sort in
> > question -- varies with the context (which is
> a
> > fairly broad concept, involving what is said,
> > what has been said, what is in the attention
> of
> > the conversants, and probably countless other
> > things encompassing the whole range of the
> > conversant's experiences and knowledge). The
>
> Yep. These factors are used to help the
> listener pick out which things
> are being spoken of. Another (or at least
> another use of) context is
> using it to place things relative to it: if we
> didn't have this
> context, we wouldn't know what "now", or
> "before", or "tomorrow", or
> "here" meant, because they're all relative to
> the current context. The
> latter is necessary just about always, but the
> former is only
> necessary when you aren't being precise enough
> (when you aren't
> restricting enough).

Actually, in the theory, moist of these examples
are relative not to the whole context but only to
the occasion of utterance, a relatively
controllable component of the context.

> When I say "this pen here-now on my table is
> blue", I use relative
> context (the latter), and disambiguating
> context is unnecessary
> altogether.

I don't see the point here (though I am glad to
see that specificity is no longer a part of the
issue). I can often be precise enough to get
down to a single possible referent within the
context (the occasion of utterance is a part of
the context, after all, however separately
treatable). Are you saying only that we can
always (a rather risky claim, so "usually")
specify the referent of an expression uniquely,
so that there is no possibility of anyone being
in any doubt. Given the things one can doubt if
one sets one's mind to it, I'll withdraw that
last bit, but surely we can specify so thoroughly
that all reasonable uncertainties are assuaged.
Sure. We don't usually go to such extremes,
however, unless forced to it by the failure of
more normal means.
But has anyone suggested otherwise. The most I
have seen is just that such precision is rarely
called for -- which seems correct.

> > speaker needs to be sure that what he says
> fits
> > into the existing context or change it in
> > recognizable ways. He does not always do so
> --
> > or does not do so successfully -- so muddling
> can
> > -- and does -- occur. And then the
> adjustments
> > have to be made. But in all this, where is
> the
> > inconsistency? Indeed, where the two usages?
>
> Quoting xorxes and myself:
>
> <<me: How would you say "let's talk about all
> bears that have ever existed"?
> >xorxes:
> > Something like:
> >
> > e'u mi'o casnu lo ro cribe poi pu ja ca
> zasti
> >
> me:
> Not by your rules. Here you are inviting me to
> talk, out of the bears
> that are in context, of the ones that have
> existed and exist.

No, he is setting a new context. To be sure, it
*could* be a subdivision of the old domain, but
-- as noted earlier -- the old domain already had
only existing bears in it so this must be taken
as an extension.

This is
> clearly inconsistent. When does {__ ro} refer
> to all bears? When
> someone includes the word zasti after a poi?

If that works, then "Yes."

> When all bears in context
> clearly already exist? "Aha, clearly he's not
> talking about all bears
> already in context, because I thought that they
> all exist... wait, was
> he talking about more than existing bears
> then"?

In this case, no, since they were all things I
could have seen.

And what if all bears
> in context don't exist now-before, and I want
> to suggest talking of
> the ones that do? Do the rules of Lojban change
> based on the context
> (all bears in context meet restrictions = new
> context, if they don't =
> modification of current context)?>>
>
> There.
>
> It's impossible for you to specify the context
> (disambiguating-context), because you can't
> jump out of the current
> context in order to do so.

Of course we can and do all the time. You seem
to have locked us into a position that no one
actually held and, should we have said something
once that might have been read as that, surely
subsequent discussion -- unless filtered through
your idee fixe -- should have long ago corrected.
I'm sorry if I was the one who said the
misleading thing, but surely I have said enough
since to indicte the way things really go and
even more surely xorxes has.

You basically have
> to make a statement
> that's nonsensical when applied to the current
> context, and then the
> listener says "uh, ok, I guess we're not
> talking about bears under
> that context anymore (or maybe my notion of the
> previous context was
> wrong?), so I'll make a guess as to what the
> context is now"

Yeah, in a sense that is the way that
conventional shifts work, although I would hope I
give better guidance than this suggests (well, I
can always hope...) and that it does not always
involve paradox (although paradox resolution is a
fabulous model for parqadim shifts, which this is
rather like in extreme cases).

- and
> there's still no guarantee that that the
> listener will choose the
> correct context:

Nope, no gurantees, but there never are in any of
this. We do the best we can and patch up as we
go along. And that is just the way it almost
always works. We can take the time to be so
precise that no reasonable uncertainty remains,
but that usually takes too long and is too
complex to do on the fly (and if you had toime to
work that all up you could probably find a better
transition within normal means).

If I try to jump out with your
> {ro} (or your
> {rosai}), there's still no guarantee that it'll
> be all bears - maybe
> you're talking about all bears in some other
> "contextual sense".
>
> > > Precision in picking out a referant has
> nothing
> > > to do with describing
> > > the referant down to the last molecule.
> It's
> > > enough to give a
> > > description that only
> the-thing(s)-you-refer-to
> > > can meet.
> >
> > Enough for what? If you get down to a
>
> Enough to let the listener know that you're
> talking about this pen and
> no other, the two cubs that are yours and no
> other, all bears that
> ever existed and not a subset, etc.

Yes. And so?

> > description which only one thing meets, it is
> > pretty pointless to add to it if your purpose
> is
>
> Yeah, it is. You misunderstand my position if
> you think that I'm
> saying we need to be needlessly specific.

Well, it was unclear just why you wanted to be so
precise (unclear to me anyhow, but I still had
specificity -- which your last remark here
reintroduced -- in part of my mind.) (Note that
you have not yet been specific, merely precise --
in the peculiar technical way we are using those
expressions: you may narrow things doen to (at
most) one things and still not be specific since
you may have no idea what that one thing is (or
even if there is one).)

> > to pick out exactly one thing (or, more
> likely,
> > at most one thing), if your purpose is to
> give a
> > complete description of a thing then
> obviously
>
> No, I'm not at all talking about giving an
> object a complete description.

Maxim Katcharov

unread,
May 7, 2006, 10:40:47 PM5/7/06
to lojba...@lojban.org
You'll have to excuse me if my response reeks of my position regarding
le and lo, as expressed the other thread : )

On 5/7/06, Yanis Batura <yba...@mail.ru> wrote:
>
>
> coi ro lojbo darlu la lojban. banli
>
>
>
>
> 1) Couldn't the difference between {lo} and {le} be expressed like this:
>
> {le} indicates that the meaning of the sumti depends on the context [of the
> speaker, of conversation / situation etc.]
>
> {lo} indicates that the meaning of the sumti does not depend on the context
> (is universal, applicable to every context)
>

This distinction (if it is complete) seems to match what I've said
regarding {le} and {lo}: {lo} is "by universal definition", {le} is
"by definition of the speaker" ("context of the speaker").

I'd say that "context of the conversation" basically boils down to the
"context of the speaker". Perhaps they (those conversing) are using an
improvised definition for bear ("black bears only" or whatever), and
both understand it. {le} basically acknowledges that you might not be
using the standard definition.

I'd prefer the use of the word 'definition' instead of 'context':

{le} indicates that the meaning of the sumti depends on the definition
[of the speaker, of conversation / situation etc.]

{lo} indicates that the meaning of the sumti does not depend on the
definition [of the speaker, of conversation / situation etc.] (is a
universal definition, applicable to every context)

>
> -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>
>
>
> 2) Isn't {da} an inconcrete version of {lo}, and {zo'e} - of {le}?
>

In what way?

I wouldn't say so, though they seem oddly similar. {da} refers to some
referant, be it of {lo} or {le}. {zo'e} simply says "there's something
here that makes this bridi true", so it seems that there is some
referant out there, though we definitely don't care about it.

>
> -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>
>
>
> 3) Are there ways to express this elusive difference (between {lo} and {le}
> sumti) for selbri?
>
> Example:
>
> fagri
>
> Fire!
>
> It means that the speaker is seeing or however experiencing the event of
> fire burning on some fuel in the air, i. e. it is the fire the speaker has
> in mind, so this selbri is more to the {le-} than to the {lo-} (I hope you

By context it probably means that they're seeing it, but really it just means:

(lo su'ono ?) cu fagri (lo su'ono ?) (lo su'ono ?)

(I don't want to get into a prenex) The question marks represent a
gismu that means nothing, basically:

(figure out what I'm referring to by context) cu fagri (figure out by
context) (figure out by context)

> understand me). Is there any way to say the same but with universal meaning,
> like "Exists!" in the philosophical sense?
>

zasti? What do you mean?

Jorge Llambías

unread,
May 3, 2006, 9:36:19 PM5/3/06
to loj...@yahoogroups.com
On 5/3/06, Maxim Katcharov <maxim.k...@gmail.com> wrote:
> I suggest that the following are the complete definitions for lo and le:
>
> lo: introduces the referent/entity.
> le: refers to an already introduced referent/entity, as da/de/mi do,
> but with the aid of what I'll call a tag.

The distinction you are making is one made by the definite
and indefinite articles in English and other languages, but this
distinction is made in Lojban (or could be made rather, since it in
not required and is not actually used that much) with {bi'u} and
{bi'unai}. {bi'u} indicates new information, and {bi'unai} already
introduced information.

{le} indicates that the referent is something in particular that the
speaker has in mind, but it may be used for introducing it for
the first time.

> {le cribe cu citka le jbari} = "it (the bear) ate it (the berries)".

Or "a certain bear (one I know of) ate certain berries (ones I know of)".

{lo cribe cu citka lo jbari} doesn't indicate that the speaker necessarily
has a certain bear or certain berries in mind (but it doesn't preclude
it either). It just says "bear eat berry" (except in Lojban it's grammatical),
and without context you can't really tell if this is meant as a generic
statement "bears often eat berries" or if you are describing a scene you
are seeing right now, "there's a bear there eating berries", or a
supposition you are making given that you can't find your berries,
"some bears ate the berries", etc. You can always add more words
to clarify if context does not make it clear which one you mean. What
{lo} does do is indicate that you are talking literally of bears and berries,
(whether in particular or in general), and not about something that you
only choose to describe as "bear" even if it isn't one. {le} does allow you
to do that because for {le} the important part is that you have a certain
referent identified and the description is just to help you convey to others
which particular things you are talking about.

> lo mirli cu fetsi "imagine a deer such that it's female"
> le mirli cu bajra "it (the deer) such that it runs"
>
> The second refers to the mirli introduced in the first.

In that case {lo bi'u nai mirli} might be better.

> It is inappropriate to use le unless it is clear within the context of
> the conversation what we're referring to.

That's probably true, unless you want your audience to know that you
have a particular referent in mind but you don't care if they are not able
to tell which referent it is. It is possible to come up with such contexts.

> If lo is used twice, even if the referents/entities introduced by both
> lo are similar, there is no indication that they are the same.

That's true in a sense. In another sense, we can say that they are
the same for all relevant purposes. If bears eat my berries every day,
I might get angry with bears. Individual bears (or berries) play no role
here: {lo cribe ro roi citka lo mi jbari i se mu'i bo mi fengu lo cribe}
"bears are always eating my berries, so I get angry at bears".
In a sense, {lo cribe} is both times the same "thing", in another
sense it need not be.

> lo ci cribe cu citka le jbari "imagine 3 bears such that they eat berries"
> lo ci cribe cu bajra "imagine 3 bears such that they run"
>
> There is no indication that the 3 bears mentioned first are the three
> bears mentioned second.

Right. But if that is all the context you provide, I would tend to
imagine the same three bears there, why add more? Of course
the story might then go: {lo bi'u nai ci cribe poi bajra cu penmi
lo bi'u nai ci cribe poi citka le jbari} which makes it clear that
it was not the same bears after all.

> I would especially like to hear xorxes' response.

a'o mi pu sidju

mu'o mi'e xorxes

Maxim Katcharov

unread,
May 6, 2006, 8:49:43 PM5/6/06
to lojba...@lojban.org
On 5/6/06, Jorge Llamb�as <jjlla...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 5/6/06, Maxim Katcharov <maxim.k...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > {ro lo cribe cu citka ro lo ro jbari pe mi} - "(some specific) bears
> > > > ate (, specifically,) all my berries"
> > >
> > > "Each bear eats each of all my berries"
> >
> > Yes. But by my definition, it would not mean "Each bear of all bears
> > ate...", but rather "Each bear of some number of bears ate...". I'm
> > not sure which you meant.
>
> Neither. I meant just "each bear eats ...".
x

Because lo is used.

> "Each of all bears" would have
> to be {ro lo ro cribe} and "each of some bears" would have to be
> {ro lo su'o cribe}. {lo} by itself does not contain any hidden {ro} or
> {su'o}.

> > > > Two questions before I can give a better explanation:
> > > >
> > > > What is the difference between {ro lo ro cribe} and {ro le ro cribe}
> > > > by your definition?
> > >
> > > ro lo ro cribe = each of all bears
> > > ro le ro cribe = each of all the bears (i.e. each of the bears I'm
> > > talking about)
> >
> > This is expressed better by:
> >
> > ro lo ro cribe = each of all bears
> > ro lo cribe = each of all the bears (i.e. each of the bears I'm talking about)
>
> For the second one I only get "each bear".

What kind of each are you talking about? "each bear" is ambiguous, not
generic, I would think.

> > ro lo ci cribe = each of the three bears (i.e. each of the three bears
> > I'm talking about)
>
> I get "each of three bears", not necessarily about specific bears.

I think that it is about specific bears. What, if not specific bears,
could you be talking about when you say {lo ci cribe}? Non-specific
bears? In my view, non-specific is better expressed as {ci lo ro
cribe}.

I you previously said that (with the focus on bears, and not berries):

{ro lo ci cribe cu citka lo ro jbari pe mi} - "Each of three bears
eats all my berries."
{ci lo ro cribe cu citka lo ro jbari pe mi} - "of all bears, there are
exactly three such that each of them eats all my berries."

When you say "exactly three", I don't think that you mean /only/ three
({po'o}). And if not that, then "exactly" seems unneccisary. Is it?
And so, what is the difference between:

{ro lo ci cribe}
{ci lo ro cribe}

Consider that it may be:

[unspecific subset of] lo [a specific 'set' of bears that I'm thinking
of] ("set" may not be the same as the lojbanic set.)

> > Just don't default the inner quantifier, or let context override the
> > default (and if context overrides the default, then just don't default
> > it). Or is there some reason that the inner quantifier is being
> > defaulted? I think that this defaulting is an artifact from when {lo
> > ci} meant that there were three in the universe, and is no longer
> > appropriate.
>
> Where am I defaulting the inner quentifier? On the contrary, I am
> not introducing any quantifiers that are not made explicit.
>
> The paradigm goes something like this:
>
> lo: converts a selbri into a sumti
> le: lo + specificity
> loi: lo + nondistributivity
> lei: lo + specificity + nondistributivity
>
> Footnote: The feature of specificity brings with it a relaxation on the need
> to take the selbri meaning as veridical, moving towards the extreme of
> names where reference is all that survives and meaning is discarded. This
> is only a footnote! It should not be taken as the definitory property of
> {le}, which is specificity.
>
> No quantifiers, inner or outer, are implicit.

This is good, but I was hoping that it would immediately illustrate my point.

> > > > How would you say "I mean every last bear in the universe", keeping in
> > > > mind that {le pa cribe} would not say anything about the amount of
> > > > bears in the universe?
> > >
> > > ro cribe poi zasti bu'u lo munje = each bear that exists in the universe
> >
> > Heh, yes indeed, though it was not what I was expecting. Would {lo ro
> > cribe}, qualified by time (and space?) work also?
>
> For bringing images about the whole universe? I don't think so.
> I don't think {lo ro bear} is any more precise than "all bears" in English.

Yes, "all bears" is what I meant, I just wanted to be explicit that I
meant "all bears", and not "all of some bears that I have in mind" or
anything like that.

Maxim Katcharov

unread,
May 8, 2006, 11:46:12 PM5/8/06
to lojba...@lojban.org
On 5/8/06, John E Clifford <cliff...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>
> --- Maxim Katcharov <maxim.k...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> > So specificity is (was?) as follows:
> >
> > I have something in mind. It might be all
> > bears, it might be a group
> > of three bears that were ahead of three other
> > bears as they were
> > chasing us, it might be all bears that chase,
> > and (herein lies your
> > specificity) it might be the three chaser-type
> > bears that specifically
> > chased us, or just (some) three chaser-type
> > bears. The former is
> > specific, the latter is non specific. Is this
> > illustrative?
>
> Not very clearly. Stick to simple examples until
> we get the fundamentals out of the way. Suppose
> I say {lo cribe cu citka le jbari}. When I go and
> check, it does not matter which bears it is that
> are eating the berries, the statement is true if
> some bears are eating (have eaten, etc.) the
> berries. On the other hand, if I say {le cribe
> cu citka le jbari}, the statement would be false
> even if some bears are eating the berries BUT
> they are not the ones I meant. I know in advance

When put this way, the distinction is (I think) illustrated perfectly,
thank you. I now understand where my previously-described use of {le}
as only non-veridical would be unsatisfactory.

> > I disagree with this concept of specificity. If
>
> I am unsure what you mean that you disagree. If

I mean with the concept of specificity which I had thought may be what
was meant, which is different from the one you described.

> you mean that this is not what separates {le}
> from {lo}, then you are simply wrong (and
> slightly rude for contradicting people who are
> trying to help you understand). If you mean that

I don't wish to be rude. I should have used "no distinction has been
made clear to me" instead of "no distinction exists". In some cases,
however, I'd much rather my statements were wrong than to have to
perpetually and explicitly state that my view does not align with the
common view and [...].

> it is a dumb distinction or that it can be
> covered without using {le}/{lo}, then, assuming
> you understand what the distinction is, we can
> have a discussion (but note that the specificity
> of {le} is from one of the oldest strata of the
> language, going back to 1960 or so, so -- unless
> you can show how to reproduce it using material
> already at hand, you are unlikely to win this

I have no solution, though I dislike the idea of having a dual purpose
(veridicity/specificity) to such fundamental words.

Regarding specificity, what is it useful for? The utility of
veridicity is illustrated by the 'man that you thought was a woman
from a distance' example.

Perhaps I should now explain how I see quantification, and how I
incorporate specificity into my understanding of how Lojban works.

Keep in mind that I may explain things in a way that isn't similar to
strict definitions. This is because I strongly believe that those
sorts of definitions shouldn't be used to explain anything. Saying
that something is 'specific' or 'veridical' means nothing to someone
who isn't familiar with the uses of those words under the given very
narrow context. If readers disagree, then point out with which
statement. The veridicity of {_e} is not taken in account for the sake
of clarity.

{__ __ ro cribe} refers to all bears. At the very least all things
that were, are, and will be bears, everywhere (maybe even imaginary
bears, story-bears, dreamt-bears, or hypothetical
I'm-afraid-a-bear-will-eat-me bears) - henceforth "all bears".

Now, let's say that you want to say "the bears that chase us are brown".

{__ __ ci cribe} refers to three bears (of potentially all bears) -
but you're not restricting it (any further than 'are-bears').

{__ __ ci cribe poi jersi} refers to three bears that are chasers
(are-bears and are-chasers) (of potentially all bears)

{ro __ ci cribe poi jersi mi'o cu bunre} refers to three
that-are-bears and that-are-chasers, and says that exactly each of
them (incidentally three) is brown.

{pa __ ci cribe poi jersi mi'o cu bunre} refers to three
that-are-bears and that-are-chasers, and says that exactly one of them
is brown.

{so __ ci cribe poi jersi mi'o cu bunre} is as good as ungramattical.


{ro __ ci vi ca cribe poi vi ca jersi mi'o cu bunre} refers to three
that-are-bears-here-now and that-are-chasers-here-now-of-us, and says
that exactly each of them is brown. (Other bears-h-n+chasers-h-n-of-us
may very well be brown.)

{ro __ ro vi ca cribe poi vi ca jersi mi'o cu bunre} refers to all
that-are-bears-here-now and that-are-chasers-here-now-of-us, and says
that exactly each of them is brown. (all of them must be brown)

{ro __ ro cribe cu bunre} all bears at all times/places are brown
{ci __ ro cribe cu bunre} three and only three bears are/were/willbe brown

An inner {ro} finalizes/commits your restriction in that it says "no
other restrictions need apply". If you say:

{ro __ ro cribe}

you cannot say that you meant the same identity-group/referant/entity/"set" as

{ro __ ro cribe poi bunre}

unless you show that

{ro __ ro cribe cu bunre}

...good so far?

Now, when you have something in mind, like the pen on my desk, you can
do one of two things:

let context restrict: {ro __ pa vi cu penbi}, {ro __ pa penbi poi cpane}, ...
restrict it yourself: {ro __ ro vi cu penbi}

In the second, I've 'fully' restricted it. That is, the restriction
that I've provided exactly matches the pen that I have in mind
(there's only one pen here-now). Note that {pa} is not used in the
second. This is because I'm not saying that there is one pen that
exists here now. (What I was getting at with ro#, e.g. {ropa}, was
that people just might ask me how many pens exist by-me-now, and this
would let me preemptively answer that question).

{ro __ ci cribe cu bunre} some three bears (out of all) each of which
is/was/or will be brown. I'm letting context restrict. Filling the
blank space:

le: I'm lazy, and I have 3 bears in mind. I don't want to restrict it
fully, like I did in my pen example. Maybe restricting them is as easy
as saying that they're in my back yard here-now (and those three and
no others are, so I just put in the inner {ro} and restrict/{poi} it
using 'in my backyard here-now', and I'm set), maybe it's hard. I just
don't want to do it. So I leave it up to context. But I do have some 3
bears in mind (that hypothetically can be restricted-to). Anyway,
those 3 bears are brown.

lo: I don't have three bears in mind. But, I want to say that three
bears are brown.

...
ok, I've lost the specificity that you mentioned, or perhaps I never
had it. See, for that latter one, I'd just say (in your terms):

{cisu'o le ro cribe cu bunre} (or maybe exactly ci)

And shouldn't that be enough? Back to your example:

> Not very clearly. Stick to simple examples until
> we get the fundamentals out of the way. Suppose

> I say {lo cribe cu citka le jbari}. When I go and
> check, it does not matter which bears it is that
> are eating the berries, the statement is true if
> some bears are eating (have eaten, etc.) the

{su'o le ro cribe cu citka...} ? (or some specific number, perhaps)

> berries. On the other hand, if I say {le cribe
> cu citka le jbari}, the statement would be false
> even if some bears are eating the berries BUT
> they are not the ones I meant. I know in advance

{ro le su'o cribe cu citka...} ?

.uacu'i

> > Of the various uses of lVi, 1 is covered in
> > plural logic by the notion of non-distributive
> > (collective) predication. As such it is not
> > appropriately expressed by a gadri, since it
> does
> > not involve something different from a
> > distributive predication but only a different
> way
> > of predicating on the same thing(s). It ought>>
>
> Just the last bit? A description refers to a
> bunch of brodas (one way or another: "bunch" has
> at least two realizations) A sentence involving
> that description says something about those
> brodas -- that they have a certain property. Now
> it may say they have that property in either of
> two ways (at least): either each of them has it
> separately ("My students wear green hats" -- each
> of them wears a green hat), also called
> distributively, or they may have it collectively
> (non-distributively) ("My students surrounded the
> building" -- no one of them did, but acting
> together they did). In the two examples, "my

I follow this part quite well.

> students" referred to exactly the same things in
> each case, the kids in my classes. What is
> different is not in what is referred to but what
> is said of it, so the distributive/collective
> distinction belongs not with the referring
> expression (the description) but with the
> predicating part. In addition, attaching the
> predication type to the description means some
> cases don't get dealt with: in "The people who
> surrounded the building wore green hats" the
> description is applied collectively (that is, it
> is based on"these people collectively surrounded
> the building" but the description is used
> distributively ("They each wore a green hat").
> In "The people wearing green hats surrounded the
> building" the opposite is the case. And, in "my
> students wore green hats and surrounded the
> building, I need "my students" to be distributive
> and collective simultaneously -- one for one
> predicate, the other for the other. Lojban has
> nothing to mark these differences except the
> gadri (nothing like "separately" and
> "collectively" of the right size), so we continue
> to use them when we can and the difference is not
> obvious but is important. Mainly, however, we
> take it that it is clear from context which is
> meant and then we can use {lo} (the least
> specified gadri) throughout.

How would you translate "my students wore green hats and surrounded
the building", or is your point that it cannot be translated well?

If I had the option, since you said that {lu'a} (an
individual/member/component of) and {lu'o} (a mass formed from) are on
their way out, then this problem could be solved by using those words
(once they become free) to indicate "seperately" or "collectively" in
relation to the... primary object(?) (that first one in a prenex, the
one that the others depend on, "each for it").

>
> <<> then to be somehow expressed in the predicate
> not
> > the arguments but there is presently no way to
> do
> > this in Lojban and no active suggestions how to
> > do it. For the nonce then the difference is
> > still covered by the lV-lVi contrast, even
> though
> > this leaves some cases uncovered. 2, the
> > corporate form, which is about a different sort
> > of thing and so might be covered by a gadri, is
> > also still covered by lVi, often without
> noticing
> > the difference involved. Should a predicate
> way
> > of dealing with the collective/distributive
> > distinction be devised, lVi might naturally be
>
> I'm again lost.>>
>
> Nowadays, {loi} etc. are used mainly for
> collective predication, but also for the
> corporate model. If we get a way of getting the
> collective notion attached to the predicate, then
> {loi} could be used just for the corporate model.
>

I don't understand the distinction between corporate and collective,
or perhaps I don't see the corporate as valid.

Consider the GM example. First, I would say that the most appropriate
term is car-maker-company (x is company for purpose 'car-making'), and
that GM cannot be "reduced" - that is, no parts of it are themselves
incidentally car-maker-companies. But that's probably beside the
point, since GM can be readily seen as a car-maker. Does this mean
that the secretaries are car-makers? No. Are they composite parts of a
car-maker? Yes, they can be.

If GM occupied an office building, I could perhaps say "those that are
occupants, grouped, are a car-maker-company". We're basically saying
"the car maker company is composed of parts: the inhabitants of the
building" and conversely "the inhabitants of the building are parts of
that company". If I say "those that are car-makers, grouped, are a
car-maker", then yes, this is true, but it says nothing of
secretaries. Depending on how strict you are, it might even exclude
them (I opt for the "are some of what compose..." approach).

In the students example, there is a single surrounder-of-the-building.
Just one. What we're saying regarding students is that they are the
(only?) composite parts of this surrounder. So, to expand:

"My students surrounded the building."
"X is a surrounder of the building. My students are the (only?)
composite parts of X."

Is this not the way that 'collective/corporate predication' works?
This is how I see it as working, and so I don't see a difference
between corporate and collective - perhaps that in one, you mean "are
some parts of..." vs. "are the only parts of..."?

> > And, by the way, {lo broda} in primary
> > usage entails that there are broda (not in the
> > scope of negations, world altering modals,
> > absttractions or opque contexts). I am less
> > clear what the other version says about simple
> > {lo broda} except that on occasion at least, it
> > is said to yield true claims from primary
> > occurrences even when there are no brodas and
> to
> > authorize external generalization from opaque
> > contexts. To do these things, it can no longer
> > refer to brodas as such but moves to something
> > at a different level

I don't see what you mean by "primary occurance", "external
generalization", and "opaque contexts". An example would probably
clear this up.

> <<The biggest aspect of my suggestion is that
> {lo}-types are capable of
> handling all cases thus-far provided, and that
> {le} is /not/ a subset
> of {lo}. >>
>
> Well, any time {le} is appropiate, {lo} may be
> used instead, but the opposite is not true. {lo}
> cannot be used to specify referents.
>
> They are completely seperate. It may as well be
> that {le}
> didn't exist.
>
> Well, we could get along without the distinction
> (and maybe should) but for now we need {le}
> because {lo} can't do its job, which is built
> into Lojban.
>
> <<And, with that in mind, this lets us
> re-introduce the
> {le}-types as a compliment to the {lo}-types,
> with the very same
> usage, except that with {le} you get "by my
> definition", while with
> {lo} you get "by common definition".>>
>
> This strikes me as a bad idea, but if you want
> that distinction there are other ways to do it in
> Lojban -- and {le} doesn't do it.

What are these ways? The distinction I was describing, in what I
consider to be 'human-readable' terms, is verificity. "It has to be
true for me, it doesn't have to be true for everyone" is equivalent to
"I'm using my definition for this".

Maxim Katcharov

unread,
May 4, 2006, 8:45:27 PM5/4/06
to lojba...@lojban.org
On 5/4/06, Jorge Llamb�as <jjlla...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 5/4/06, Maxim Katcharov <maxim.k...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > What does it mean to have the
> > bear "in mind"? Is it opposed to, say, "any bear", or "bears in
> > general", or "bearness", or "all bears typically"?
>
> Yes. (Except for "bearness", because lo cribe has to be something
> that does cribe, and bearness doesn't.)
[...]
> > I would like to have what "in mind" means explained.
>
> I think {le} indeed serves to preclude the "any" or "in general"
> interpretation that {lo} does not preclude.

So... is it then impossible to use {lo'e} in conjunction with "le"? If
it is possible, then what do you mean by {le} serving to preclude the
"any" or "in general" interpretations?

Maxim Katcharov

unread,
May 3, 2006, 11:51:32 PM5/3/06
to loj...@yahoogroups.com
On 5/3/06, Jorge Llamb�as <jjlla...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 5/3/06, Maxim Katcharov <maxim.k...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > I suggest that the following are the complete definitions for lo and le:
> >
> > lo: introduces the referent/entity.
> > le: refers to an already introduced referent/entity, as da/de/mi do,
> > but with the aid of what I'll call a tag.
>
> The distinction you are making is one made by the definite
> and indefinite articles in English and other languages,

Yes, though there seem to be other uses in English.

> but this
> distinction is made in Lojban (or could be made rather, since it in
> not required and is not actually used that much) with {bi'u} and
> {bi'unai}. {bi'u} indicates new information, and {bi'unai} already
> introduced information.

je'e, I now see that CLL lists them as such.

I am now more definite in my understanding of how lo and le work, but
I don't (yet) see their utility. le seems to be simply a specific
variant of lo - it's lo, but you imply that if someone asks, you can
provide more details on the referant (probably because you've seen
it). Additionally, it also has (what I'll call) an abstracter that
lets you say something like "(what I'll call)". I would think that
this abstractor feature would work better as cmavo that said
"something that by my quick definition is X" - perhaps in addition to
another cmavo that lets you say "something to do with X", which would
let you refer to bear paste by using it + cribe. Perhaps these already
exist.

Maxim Katcharov

unread,
May 6, 2006, 12:37:09 AM5/6/06
to lojba...@lojban.org
On 5/5/06, Jorge Llamb�as <jjlla...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 5/5/06, Maxim Katcharov <maxim.k...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > I guess that it's whatever Lojban structure is used to express the
> > difference between "the cat ran to the HOUSE", "the cat RAN to the
> > house", and "the CAT ran to the house", as they are used in English.
>
> That's {ba'e}, but I don't think {ba'e} helps for "is THE neighborhood
> to live in".
> At least I don't see why emphasizing a gadri in Lojban should have the
> same effect that an emphatic "the" has in English. (Spanish works just
> like English in this regard, so it's not something peculiar to English, but
> still, I don't see why it would be transferred to Lojban.)

"it is THE neighborhood" probably has something to do with "it is the
ideal form" (though I don't think that Lojban has an ideal form in the
same way that it has a typical form.)

> > > It is perfectly possible to use {le nobli turni be la uels} for the real
> > > Prince of Wales, since it is a particular, specified nobli turni be
> > > la uels, and that would be the first interpretation that comes to mind
> > > in the absence of context to the contrary.
> >
> > What's {lo nobli turni be la uels} ?
>
> "Noble governor(s) of Wales". If we know Wales only has one such,
> then we might understand it as "the (current?) noble governor of Wales".
>
> > > {lo} is always a good substitute for {loi}. If {loi} did not exist, I wouldn't
> > > miss it.
> >
> > This is perhaps my point. I theorize that the proper intent of {loi}
> > vs {lo} has been shifted into {lo} vs {le}.
>
> {loi} has had a very shifty history indeed, but I don't think along the lines
> you suggest. In any case, the meaning of {le} has been exceptionally stable
> among gadri, it still has basically the same meaning that it also has in
> Loglan.
>
> My current understanding of {loi} (I'm not sure I can call it the current
> consensus, but maybe yes given that pc agrees) is that it simply
> indicates nondistributivity. {loi ci nanmu cu bevri le pipno}
> "three men (together) carried the piano" vs. {ro lo ci nanmu cu
> bevri le pipno}, "each of three men carried the piano".
>
> {lo}, being semantically empty for me, does not indicate distributivity
> nor non-distributivity, so it can be used for both cases.
>
> > My {loi} is your {lo}, and my {lo} is your {le}.
>
> I'm not sure your {loi} is different from my {loi}, I'd need to see more
> examples.
>
> In any case, when my {loi} is correct, my {lo} is also correct, if more
> vague. My {lo} just doesn't carry any indication about distributivity.
>
> > You seem to have no place for your {loi}.
>
> I do, but in my experience distributivity seems to be almost always obvious
> from context, and using {loi} brings other problems with it (like for example
> you can't apply a distributive and a non-distributive predicate to the same
> sumti, "the three men were wearing red shirts (each his own) and carried
> the piano (the three together)", so I simply use {lo/le} unless indicating
> non-distributivity is really crucial and non-obvious for some reason.
>
> > Your definitions:
> >
> > le - {le labno} - "the wolf ran away" (specific wolf) + "what I'm calling a"
> > lo - {lo labno} - "wolves faces extinction" (general wolf)
>
> Not always, but it covers it.
>
> > lei - ?
> > loi - ?
>
> These both indicate nondistributivity.

I see what you mean, and perhaps I was wrong to use loi in some of
these cases (e.g. "loi - {loi labno} - wolves face extinction (general
wolf)"). In that case I should have described them as {lo ro}, which
points towards where the confusion arises. I think it's that ro is the
default inner quantifier of lo, and so some things that are true for
the default case extend into cases where numbers are specified.

{lo ro cribe cu citka lo ro jbari} - "(all) bears eat berries"
{ro lo cribe cu citka lo ro jbari pe mi} - "(some specific) bears ate
(some unspecific of) my berries"


{ro lo cribe cu citka ro lo ro jbari pe mi} - "(some specific) bears
ate (, specifically,) all my berries"

{ro lo ci cribe cu citka lo ro jbari pe mi} - "three bears ate my
berries" (all of some specific three)
{ci lo ro cribe cu citka lo ro jbari pe mi} - "three bears ate my
berries" (some unspecific of all)

Two questions before I can give a better explanation:

What is the difference between {ro lo ro cribe} and {ro le ro cribe}
by your definition?

How would you say "I mean every last bear in the universe", keeping in


mind that {le pa cribe} would not say anything about the amount of
bears in the universe?

>
> > le'e - ?
> > lo'e - ?
>
> I don't have a definite opinion. See
> <http://www.lojban.org/tiki/tiki-index.php?page=BPFK+Section%3A+Typicals>
> for some discussion on
> the problems of the "typicals".

Looks interesting, though I can't translate some of the Lojban that
the examples use.

Jorge Llambías

unread,
May 10, 2006, 8:54:55 PM5/10/06
to loj...@yahoogroups.com
On 5/10/06, Maxim Katcharov <maxim.k...@gmail.com> wrote:
> No, I see no difference. If you make this inner "all" open to
> interpretation,

It is not "all" that is open to interpretation, it is "bear" (or whatever
the predicate). The set of things that satisfy a given predicate
relevantly depends on the context of the utterance.

> then you have no way to be absolutely specific
> regarding meaning "all ever", or ("all bears ever who are climbers of
> this *pats a tree* ever, within 5 minutes backwards and forwards of
> right... now.")

Yes, you can do it in the same or a similar way as you are doing it
in English here, by adding more clarifying words. The {sai} or {cai}
I proposed plays a similar role to the "ever" in the English "all ever".
It is usually not necessary, but it can help you convey a difference.

mu'o mi'e xorxes

Maxim Katcharov

unread,
May 11, 2006, 4:06:35 PM5/11/06
to loj...@yahoogroups.com
On 5/11/06, Jorge Llamb�as <jjlla...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 5/10/06, Maxim Katcharov <maxim.k...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > I don't understand the implications of "It is not "all" that is open
> > to interpretation, it is "bear" ".
>
> Once you figure out what counts as a bear in a given discourse, "all bears"
> is clear, it's all the things that count as bears. The more difficult task from
> the point of view of interpretation is figuring out what is being counted as
> a bear.
>

Ah, yes, I see what you're saying. I agree that the latter may be
difficult, but my current point is that referring to all bears (ever)
is currently being made needlessly difficult.

> > No, I didn't mention any of these bears. They're simply there. We were
> > sitting in silence. Suddenly, I speak up with {__ ro cribe} (with sai
> > or without). Which "all bears" am I talking about?
>
> My guess would probably depend on what you said about them.
> I can't give you a context-free answer, I don't think there is one.
> Consider this dialogue:
>
> A: Please take everything out of that box.

Use a blank inner quantifier.

> B: Sorry, I can't do that, there are many things that are not in the box.
> And even if you would want me to put them there first so I can take them
> out, there are many things that just won't fit in the box.

If A used inner {ro} (my definition) to refer not just to "all bears"
but to "all everything" (unrestricted), then frankly, B is doing a
good job of smacking A around for A's indiscretion.

> A: Very funny. Please take everything that's in that box out of it, then.

At this point, A would say "whoops". Then, he'd probably omit the
inner {ro}, because this is clearly a case where a blank inner is
better. Of course he could rephrase: {lo ro tutci poi [within this box
{nau}]...} "Please take all instruments that are in that box out of
it".

> B: The thing is, the box is not very well sealed, and even if it was, not
> even the most powerful vaccuum pump available would allow me to take
> each and every molecule out of it. Not to mention muons and stuff.
> A: Never mind, I'll do it myself.
>
> How do you analyze it?


>
> > How would you say "let's talk about all bears that have ever existed"?
>

> Something like:
>
> e'u mi'o casnu lo ro cribe poi pu ja ca zasti
>

Not by your rules. Here you are inviting me to talk, out of the bears
that are in context, of the ones that have existed and exist. This is


clearly inconsistent. When does {__ ro} refer to all bears? When

someone includes the word zasti after a poi? When all bears in context


clearly already exist? "Aha, clearly he's not talking about all bears
already in context, because I thought that they all exist... wait, was

he talking about more than existing bears then"? And what if all bears


in context don't exist now-before, and I want to suggest talking of
the ones that do? Do the rules of Lojban change based on the context
(all bears in context meet restrictions = new context, if they don't =
modification of current context)?

>
> > I don't understand what you're getting at here. I'm not planning to
> > correct the context, I just want to start talking about all bears,
> > regardless of the many interpretations of "all bears".
>
> Then use {lo ro cribe}, that refers to all bears.
>

By your definition, this means "all" in context (or "all in context",
I really can't tell the difference).

> Here are some examples I just got from Googling "all bears":
>
> "Because all bears love honey, Luna and Mica eagerly participate in
> the research."
> "All bears, whether meat-eating or vegetarian, have the teeth of a ... "
> "All bears have relatively short life spans � living only about 25 or 30 years."
> "All bears share a similar anatomy, but individual species vary in
> size, diet, ... "
> "All bears are opportunistic in locating food, so black bears were
> often found ... "
> "All bears are made from the finest German mohair and are fully
> jointed. ... All bears are hand sewn from the best mohair and fabrics
> available."
> "Being the largest of all bears and land carnivores, the polar bear
> can measure up to ..."
> "The cutest of all bears wrapped in a cozy blanket. The perfect gift
> for any newborn baby boy."
> "All bears killed by people, including emergency kills, illegal kills,
> ... must be accounted for under the quota"
>
> In most of these cases the referent of "all bears" seems to be kinds. That

Kinds? (The only thing popping into my head is "of species x2")

> should be covered by {lo ro cribe}, since a kind of bear is an appropriate
> thing to put in the x1 of {cribe}.

Jorge Llambías

unread,
May 9, 2006, 11:49:21 AM5/9/06
to loj...@yahoogroups.com
A couple of short stories by Robert L. Stevenson I translated
recently:

<http://www.lojban.org/tiki/tiki-index.php?page=le%20junla%20zbasu>
<http://www.lojban.org/tiki/tiki-index.php?page=le%20saske%20smani>

I don't think the language used in them should present difficulties to
beginners, and they are not long.

There's a lot of Lojban material out there these days, for all tastes: original
writing, translations, Lojban wikipedia articles, blogs, etc.

Maxim Katcharov

unread,
May 6, 2006, 4:47:09 PM5/6/06
to loj...@yahoogroups.com
On 5/6/06, Jorge Llamb�as <jjlla...@gmail.com> wrote:
> ti me ba'e ro pa jarbu be te zu'e lo nu xabju
> "This is the ONE (neighborhood to live in)."

This looks quite accurate.

> > {lo ro cribe cu citka lo ro jbari} - "(all) bears eat berries"
>

> That would also say that all berries get eaten by bears.

Yes, it could also say that. To be quite specific about it, I'd say
{ro lo ro...su'o lo ro...} - "all bears eat berries".

> > {ro lo cribe cu citka lo ro jbari pe mi} - "(some specific) bears ate
> > (some unspecific of) my berries"
>

> That says that each bear eats all my berries, which can't really be
> the case unless there's only one bear.

(My bad, I shouldn't have tried to do anything with the berries, I was
treating it as some sort of mass noun, and should have properly marked
it as such.)

Yes, there would only be one bear. Except it wouldn't say that all the
berries were eaten, just that _some_ of them were.

> > {ro lo cribe cu citka ro lo ro jbari pe mi} - "(some specific) bears
> > ate (, specifically,) all my berries"
>

> "Each bear eats each of all my berries"

Yes. But by my definition, it would not mean "Each bear of all bears

ate...", but rather "Each bear of some number of bears ate...". I'm
not sure which you meant.

> > {ro lo ci cribe cu citka lo ro jbari pe mi} - "three bears ate my
> > berries" (all of some specific three)
>

> "Each of three bears eats all my berries."
>

> In all of the above cases, you don't want {ro} as the outer quantifier
> because you don't want it to be distributive.

I didn't mean that bears ate berries as a group, but that berries were
eaten as a group, but I didn't express that properly.

"Each of three" is exactly right.

>
> > {ci lo ro cribe cu citka lo ro jbari pe mi} - "three bears ate my
> > berries" (some unspecific of all)
>

> This says that of all bears, there are exactly three such that each


> of them eats all my berries.

Yes.

>
> > Two questions before I can give a better explanation:
> >
> > What is the difference between {ro lo ro cribe} and {ro le ro cribe}
> > by your definition?
>

> ro lo ro cribe = each of all bears
> ro le ro cribe = each of all the bears (i.e. each of the bears I'm
> talking about)

This is expressed better by:

ro lo ro cribe = each of all bears
ro lo cribe = each of all the bears (i.e. each of the bears I'm talking about)

ro lo ci cribe = each of the three bears (i.e. each of the three bears
I'm talking about)

Just don't default the inner quantifier, or let context override the


default (and if context overrides the default, then just don't default
it). Or is there some reason that the inner quantifier is being
defaulted? I think that this defaulting is an artifact from when {lo
ci} meant that there were three in the universe, and is no longer
appropriate.

>


> > How would you say "I mean every last bear in the universe", keeping in
> > mind that {le pa cribe} would not say anything about the amount of
> > bears in the universe?
>

> ro cribe poi zasti bu'u lo munje = each bear that exists in the universe

Heh, yes indeed, though it was not what I was expecting. Would {lo ro
cribe}, qualified by time (and space?) work also?

Adam COOPER

unread,
May 9, 2006, 11:49:52 AM5/9/06
to lojba...@lojban.org
On 5/9/06, Bob LeChevalier <loj...@lojban.org> wrote:
[...]

Athelstan was wise in tackling a Saki short story 16 years ago.  There
are plenty of these, they are only a few pages long so they can be
translated much more quickly than a novel, and they are short enough
that a lot of relatively novice Lojbanists would be inclined to try to
read the text  (I don't expect that there will be much market for the
Lojban translations of "War and Peace" or "Les Miserables" for a good
while).

I've drafted a translation of Saki's "The disappearance of Crispina Umberleigh". It still has a long way to go, but it will appear at some point. Anyone who's dying to work on that particular Saki, please let me know & we'll finish it together.

John E Clifford

unread,
May 7, 2006, 5:31:08 PM5/7/06
to lojba...@lojban.org
Let me summarize where thing lie at the moment
and where various people are trying to make them
go. I omit Maxim's, partly because I don't think
they have really settled down yet and partly
because I am not at all sure I understand where
they are at the moment.

Officially:
{le} and {lo} are distinguished by specificity.
In addition (as a consequence of inspecificity,
so it can be taken as pointing somewhere), what
is referred by {lo broda} to must be a broda. On
the other hand, what is referred to by {le broda}
does not have to be a broda (though its being a
broda is the best reason for calling it one).
This is a consequence of specificity: we have the
referent picked out already and the description
merely gives it a tag -- one that will help
others to find the right thing as well (the
correct tag will sometimes -- maybe even often --
interfere with finding the right thing: calling
Juno a man rather than a woman, while correct
would not lead to Juno, since others identified
her(him) as a woman).
The implicit quantifiers on {le} are {su'o}
internally and {ro} externally. The implicit
quantifiers on {lo} are just the reverse. So an
explicit internal quantifier on {lo} gives the
number of all the whatevers in the world, while
one on {le} just tells how many thingies the
speaker has in mind. External quantifers are
partitive, how many out of the totality given by
the internal quantifer are being spoken of here.

{lo,le,la} are about individuals taken
separately, that is, what is predicated of a
sumti of these sorts is predicated of each
ultimate referent of that sumti taken
individually. In contrast, {loi, lei, lai} are
about "masses," one of those words that
Loglan/Lojban has taken over from some fairly
precise meaning -- I think "mass noun" -- and
used differently and without a very clear
meaning. Among the things that examples suggest
as falling under this notion -- and which others
have elevated at one time or another to the main
meaning of {loi} etc. expressions are 1) {loi
broda cu brode} says of some brodas that although
no one of them brodes, taken together they do
(e.g. surround a building as the brode), all of
them participating in the event. 2) the
corporation of brodas -- like 1 in that no one
member does it but unlike 1 in that {loi broda}
may remain the same even if the brodas referred
to change and the corporation may do things in
which some -- or even all -- of its members do
not participate (GM makes cars although many
members of GM don't work on cars, the Red Sox won
the pennant although all management and some
players on the roster did not ever play any
baseball)(Species are either in this group or
something very similar.). 3) The mass noun
related to {broda} (which, in Lojban, is always
count), the goo into which brodas dissolve under
pressure and of which they may be taken as slices
(the "gavagai" jokes and, after the accident,
"there was dog all over the car). There are
probably others I have forgotten ("myopic
individuals" or some such that I never
understood, for example). In any case, they lVi
sumti are not about individuals taken separately.
{lo'i, le'i, la'i} are for Cantor sets of
individuals of the noted sort. Like the lVi
series they preserve the disntions among the
simple e, o, and a gadri.

The way changes are going (this may not be a
completely accurate presentation of all the view,
since I am a partisan here and also don't really
understand some moves by others).

A. The lV'i series for sets was needed in the
olden days because standard logic had (that it
was aware of) no way of dealing with plurals than
by sets (which are singular but encompass many).
Of course, in that same standard logic talk about
sets had no (very straightforward) way to deal
with the properties of the members of a set while
talking about the set explicitly. The appearance
(or coming to attention) of plural quantification
(and reference) removed that problem and
introduced a device (actually either of at least
two devices) which dealt with plurals in a way
that covered both ordinary sumti (lV, lVi, etc.)
and did all the things that sets were explicitly
used to do. In short, though lV'i remains in the
language, it has virtually no usefulness outside
of mathematics (and so does not need such a
useful set of words). I think everyone wants to
get rid of these altogether, but it will take
some doing to actually make the change.

Of the various uses of lVi, 1 is covered in
plural logic by the notion of non-distributive
(collective) predication. As such it is not
appropriately expressed by a gadri, since it does
not involve something different from a
distributive predication but only a different way
of predicating on the same thing(s). It ought

then to be somehow expressed in the predicate not
the arguments but there is presently no way to do
this in Lojban and no active suggestions how to
do it. For the nonce then the difference is
still covered by the lV-lVi contrast, even though
this leaves some cases uncovered. 2, the
corporate form, which is about a different sort
of thing and so might be covered by a gadri, is
also still covered by lVi, often without noticing
the difference involved. Should a predicate way
of dealing with the collective/distributive
distinction be devised, lVi might naturally be

used for these cases, although they are perhaps
not common enough to deserve such a central set
of words. I thin that some people still use lVi
for the goo reading, 3, although it seems to be
adequately covered by collective predication over
pieces of brodas and that locution seems to be
about the right length for the frquency of this
sort notion. (Something like this may also work
forthe corporate model, 2, using the appropriate
one of a number of predicates for organizations
of this sort -- if the right ones exist).

Moving lV, as far as I can tell {le} and {la} are
unchanged, except that the distributivity need
not be assumed; rather whether distribution or
collection is meant is mainly left to context,
with the lVi forms brought in where collection is
crucial and not obvious. Presumably solving the
predication form of this would allow these gadri
to be neutral -- just referring to the brodas
involved without limiting how they are inolved.
Implicit quantifiers have been done away with,
except that the very meaning of these two gadri
require that there be something they refer to
(i.e., it is as if the implicit internal
quantifier were {su'o}) and both distribution and
collection are about all the members in these
cases, so something like explicit external {ro}
is involved. These readings off what is involved
in specifying seem to be the point which the old
implicit quantifiers were meant to cover).
The case of {lo} is somewhat more complex. The
basics are clear enough: it is unmarked for
specificity and for distributivity. And the
explicit external quantifiers are clear, that is
how many brodas we are attributiing the predicate
to (and, probably, distributively since
quantifiers tend to individualize rather than
mass).
After that comes the separation. On one view,
the unmarked form is just the unspecific form of
{le}, brodas that get caught up in this case by
context and intent, but not specified. An
explicit internal quantifier says how many there
are as such in this case, and an external
quantifier says how many of them get the current
prdicate. And, by the way, {lo broda} in primary


usage entails that there are broda (not in the
scope of negations, world altering modals,
absttractions or opque contexts). I am less
clear what the other version says about simple
{lo broda} except that on occasion at least, it
is said to yield true claims from primary
occurrences even when there are no brodas and to
authorize external generalization from opaque
contexts. To do these things, it can no longer
refer to brodas as such but moves to something at

a different level (I've tried a number of
suggestions, none of which worked apparently). In
addition, internal quantifiers become part of the
defining predicate: {lo ci broda} is not three
brodas bu some (or maybe no?) broda triads. {mu
lo ci broda} then is five broda triads -- between
seven and fifteen brodas.
Now, against that background, I wonder if Maxim
can provide some clarification of his suggestions.

Ed Blake

unread,
May 5, 2006, 12:52:48 PM5/5/06
to loj...@yahoogroups.com
--- Maxim Katcharov <maxim.k...@gmail.com> wrote:

> ...
>
> {lo cribe cu citka lo jbari} - bear eat berry
> {lo'e cribe cu citka lo jbari} - bears eat berries (the typical bear
> eats berries)
> {le cribe cu citka lo jbari} - a bear ate berries (or maybe I think
> that bears will come and eat berries, whatever)
>
> ...yes? Confusing.
>

.u'i As a novice I would like to get into this conversation and muddy the
waters a bit!

In my understanding the difference between lo cribe and le cribe is that when
I say "lo cribe cu citka lo jbari" I mean Actual bears eat Actual berries -
while when I say "le cribe cu citka le jbari" I mean "there is some thing I'm
calling a bear (which may or may not be vaguely resemble a bear) is eating
something I'm calling 'berries' (regardless of whether they are really apples
or papaya or people)".

lo == the thing which (apparently) really is X
le == the thing I'm calling X (which is not required to be a real X)

So the usefulness of le is that you can describe things by their
characteristics/behavior or any word you want to apply to them.
While with lo you mean what you (exactly) say - no metaphor, no simile, no
puns, etc.

So is that it, or am I totaly decieved?

John E Clifford

unread,
May 8, 2006, 11:29:18 AM5/8/06
to lojba...@lojban.org

--- Maxim Katcharov <maxim.k...@gmail.com>
wrote:

> On 5/7/06, John E Clifford


> <cliff...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
> > Let me summarize where thing lie at the
> moment
> > and where various people are trying to make
> them
> > go. I omit Maxim's, partly because I don't
> think
> > they have really settled down yet and partly
> > because I am not at all sure I understand
> where
> > they are at the moment.
>

> (Indeed they aren't.) I'll illustrate my
> position, as you asked it, by
> commenting on or (dis)agreeing with various
> given background
> statements. You'll have to bear with me (pun
> perhaps intentional) in
> my responses below, as I'm less familiar (with
> some aspects of it).


>
> > Officially:
> > {le} and {lo} are distinguished by
> specificity.
> > In addition (as a consequence of
> inspecificity,
> > so it can be taken as pointing somewhere),
> what
> > is referred by {lo broda} to must be a broda.
> On
> > the other hand, what is referred to by {le
> broda}
> > does not have to be a broda (though its being
> a
> > broda is the best reason for calling it one).
> > This is a consequence of specificity: we have
> the
> > referent picked out already and the
> description
> > merely gives it a tag -- one that will help
> > others to find the right thing as well (the
>

> So specificity is (was?) as follows:
>
> I have something in mind. It might be all
> bears, it might be a group
> of three bears that were ahead of three other
> bears as they were
> chasing us, it might be all bears that chase,
> and (herein lies your
> specificity) it might be the three chaser-type
> bears that specifically
> chased us, or just (some) three chaser-type
> bears. The former is
> specific, the latter is non specific. Is this
> illustrative?

Not very clearly. Stick to simple examples until
we get the fundamentals out of the way. Suppose
I say {lo cribe cu citka le jbari}. When I go and
check, it does not matter which bears it is that
are eating the berries, the statement is true if
some bears are eating (have eaten, etc.) the
berries. On the other hand, if I say {le cribe
cu citka le jbari}, the statement would be false
even if some bears are eating the berries BUT
they are not the ones I meant. I know in advance

what bears are eating berries if the statement is
true. With {lo} I have to look and find out which
ones it is, but any will do (including ones I had
in mind).
In Logic, what corresponds to {le} is a name or a
free term or a variable bound by a quantifier
outside the given context. That is, the
referent(s) is (are) fixed for the duration (two
occurrences of {le cribe} in the same context
refer to the same thing, of {lo cribe} not so
certainly). As a test, does a name make sense
here. If not, definitely use {lo}, if yes, then
{le} is prabably OK.

> I disagree with this concept of specificity. If

> I wanted to say "three
> chaser type bears" (non-specific, just that
> some three), I'd say {ci
> lo (ro) broda poi [restricted to
> also-chasers]}.

I am unsure what you mean that you disagree. If

you mean that this is not what separates {le}
from {lo}, then you are simply wrong (and
slightly rude for contradicting people who are
trying to help you understand). If you mean that

it is a dumb distinction or that it can be
covered without using {le}/{lo}, then, assuming
you understand what the distinction is, we can
have a discussion (but note that the specificity
of {le} is from one of the oldest strata of the
language, going back to 1960 or so, so -- unless
you can show how to reproduce it using material
already at hand, you are unlikely to win this

point). As for your example, {ci lo (ro) cribe}
(and the {ro} really is unnecessary -- as is the
{lo} for that matter), does just say "three
bears" unspecifically and adding a {poi} clause
just says "three bears of a certain sort" also
unspecifically. And this something about {le} or
specificity how? Piling on new properties does
not make thing more specific, only more narrowly
defined and at any level of definition one can be
specific (a delimited group of things so defined)
or general. Even if the definition is so narrow
that only one thing satisfies it.


> In all cases (regarding the inner quantifier),
> the referent is picked
> out. You could mean 10 bears, 20 bears, the
> referent is there. You
> need not even know the number of bears that you
> mean - maybe you mean
> incidentally all, maybe you mean somewhere
> above one, maybe you mean
> somewhere around 10000 - you just don't know
> how to accurately
> quantify them, or maybe you don't want to. The
> best you /can/ do is
> restrict them ("I mean that are also chasers"),
> or restrict them
> absolutely with an inner {ro} - "yes I mean
> exactly 'they are bears
> and they are chasers', in which case you can't
> say 'well no, I really
> meant the ones that are climbers (excluding
> non-climbers), and are
> bears, and are chasers' ". Basically, ("bears
> that are chasers, all of
> them, and so that's exactly what I mean/have in
> mind").

I don't see the point of this now. I am also
unsure why making the inner quantifier {ro}
restricts things (it seems to leave it as open as
possible). In general I think (though there is
admittedly some dispute about this) that internal
quantifiers just say how many are referents of
the description: if you don't know or don't care
(or don't want to say), you leave it out. But
putting it in does not make the description more
specific; at best it makes it more precise. Nor
does having in mind in the sense of "thinking
about": I can have bears that chase us in mind
without being specific -- any bear that chses us
will do.

> Adding that inner {ro} means that you're
> committing to your
> restrictions, and no other restrictions need
> apply. If you think that
> maybe you havn't restricted it well enough
> ("well, I mean bears that
> were chasers but perhaps this could be
> restricted further.."), keep it
> at (the default) {su'o}, don't use {ro}.

I still don't understand what internal
quantifiers have to do with specificity -- or
maybe what this discussion is meant to be about.

> '{ro} is a commiter' applies to /both/ {lo}
> /and/ {le}. With {le},
> however, you could backpedal and say that your
> definition of bear (or
> chaser) meant that they were climbers also
> ('bears in my mind were
> inherently climbers, no bears existed that
> weren't'), but you'd
> probably just say that you goofed up (on your
> own definition) and
> should have restricted it better or not have
> used {ro} - just as you'd
> do if you messed up on your {lo} restrictions.

{ro} is not a committer in any sense that I can
see; as an internal quantifier it just means that
you are referring to all (the relevant ones) that
satisfy the description. The description may or
may not be the one you really want to use, but
that is a separate issue. I suppose that there
is a sense in which "all of them" is specific,
since there is nothing that satisfies the
description that does not count, but I would
still say you can use {lo} with it as well as
{le}, probably because I doubt that you can take
in all of something as individuals (maybe a bit
shakey here).

> Something very important, and perhaps the
> source of the initial
> definition's error: The complete purpose of
> {ro} is that it finalizes
> your restrictions. "Those three bears that
> chased us (were brown)" is
> *not* translated using a {ci}. It's translated
> using a {ro}. {lo ro
> cribe poi jersi mi'o [were brown]}. But in fact
> the complete
> translation would be (perhaps) {ci lo ro cribe
> cu jersi mi'o
> [identical with] ro lo ci cribe cu bunre}. So
> it seems that English
> has a nice way of wrapping an assertion
> regarding exactly how many
> there were right into a sentence. Note the
> difference between:

> "The three bears that chased us (were brown)"
> "Those three bears that chased us (were brown)"

I am sure there is a difference (but it is mighty
small) but it does not seem to be related to the
factors you have suggested (which, admittedly, I
am not yet quite clear about. I think my problem
is that I am not sure just what you are out to
demonstrate, largely because my mind is stuck on
specificity and cardinality and you seem to be
somewhere else).

> The first implies that there may have been
> other chasing bears ("but I
> mean just three, and don't want to bother
> restricting"), the second
> basically contains an assertion regarding how
> many bears there were.
> The first is translated to {lo ci cribe poi
> jersi mi'o [were brown]}.
> The translation to the second is above
> (involving identity).

Well, the translation isn't grammatical and there
is a general warning about using identities ever
and particularly between description. But all
that aside, the distinction betweeen the English
sentences (assuming there is one) doesn't seem to
be anything like what you propose. "The three
bears that chased us" would generally be taken to
mean that there were (exactly) three bears that
chased us. If there were more but we only wanted
to talk about three of them, we would probably
say "three of the bears that chased us". I would
distinguish these (though some features here are
not very Lojbanic) as {le ci cribe...} and {ci le
cribe...} "Those three bears" might be used just
like the first of these or, after we have
restricted our interest, like the second
occurrence of "three of the bears" when we meant
the same three.

> All of this is why I considered the zoo example
> provided incorrect,
> and should serve to illustrate exactly how I'm
> approaching
> quantifiers.

So, we are talking about quantifiers; I got that
mixed up with specificity somehow. When you say
the example is incorrect, what exactly do you
mean. At best, I would take this to mean that
you do not understand the example the way that
xorxes does, in which case, you need to say how
you do understand it and what makes you think it
goes that way. Again a fair warning: arguing
with xorxes about what a Lojban sentence means is
usually a losing battle. But this case seems
particularly doomed since you are starting by
saying some strange things about quantifiers,
things that even I can see are wrong.

> Perhaps an aside: Because an assertion
> regarding how many there were
> seems useful, I suggest that ro+# would be the
> equivalent of "those
> three", or "them three-all bears" (suppose a
> rural dialect) - that is,
> you could now pack an assertion of exactly how
> many there were such
> that fit... into your basic statement.

That is what internal quantifiers do (and, in a
different way, external ones too). So we don't
need another way of doing it, especially not a
confusing and verbose one like this suggestion.

This is
> thought to be a bad
> idea in the case of {lo rosoci cribe} "there
> are things, and there are
> 91 such that are bears", (er, I may have
> screwed that up) and it is a
> bad idea for something so vaguely restricted,
> but it would capture the
> translation of "those three bears..."
> perfectly. But this suggestion
> can probably wait until this is all sorted out.

As noted, it doesn't seem to have anything to do
with "those three bears" and, of course, it (a
description) doesn't mean anything like the the
quoted sentence that follows.



> > This is a consequence of specificity: we have
> the
> > referent picked out already and the
> description
> > merely gives it a tag -- one that will help
> > others to find the right thing as well (the
> > correct tag will sometimes -- maybe even
> often --
> > interfere with finding the right thing:
> calling
> > Juno a man rather than a woman, while correct
> > would not lead to Juno, since others
> identified
> > her(him) as a woman).
>

> As I hope I demonstrated above, you always have
> a referent picked out.
> But yes, this is exactly what I consider the
> function of {le}.

Not quite sure what "this" means but the function
of {le} is to refer to specified objects, which
function allows for inaccurate descriptions to
work. You have not demonstrated that the speaker
always has a referent picked out "Students who
get As pass" not only does not have a referents
picked out, there may not be any referents at
all.



> > The implicit quantifiers on {le} are {su'o}
> > internally and {ro} externally. The implicit
> > quantifiers on {lo} are just the reverse. So
> an
> > explicit internal quantifier on {lo} gives
> the
> > number of all the whatevers in the world,
> while
>

=== message truncated ===

Wang Xuerui

unread,
May 12, 2006, 12:46:29 AM5/12/06
to lojba...@lojban.org
Yes, and I'd like to translate a Chinese one:
我深刻地懂得你们的语言。
Hope it is useful...
 
2006/5/11, HeliodoR <exitc...@gmail.com>:
I understand your language perfectly.
Je parle français comme une vache espagnole.
Hablo español como un gringo borracho.
Ich sprechen deutsch wie italienisch Fußballtrainer.
mi se bangu la lojban tai mu xagji sofybakni
 
:)



--
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
[王] 在此 (只是普通学生, 不要怕)
Only an ordinary student Wang is here. Don't be afraid.

mu'o mi'e .uang. ciue,ruis. mi tadni co fadni. e'osai ko sarji mi.

Jorge Llambías

unread,
May 5, 2006, 9:22:46 AM5/5/06
to lojba...@lojban.org
On 5/4/06, Maxim Katcharov <maxim.k...@gmail.com> wrote:
> The point that I'm getting at is: if {le} basically precludes some
> certain subset of {lo} that could be specified by some cmavo, then
> this means that it precludes that cmavo. And that's a strange way to
> use a word. It's like saying that {le} is {lo}, but never {lo mu} (a
> much more extreme example).

I didn't mean to imply that that is the basic function of {le}, only that
{le} does in fact do that. I was agreeing with your:

> What does it mean to have the
> bear "in mind"? Is it opposed to, say, "any bear", or "bears in
> general", or "bearness", or "all bears typically"?

So I think that yes, {le} is opposed to that.

> {lo ro cribe} means "all bears", yes?

Yes.

> What does {le ro cribe} mean? What if by that same {le cribe}
> I have "in mind" all bears? Wouldn't
> it then be the same as {lo ro cribe}? If not, then why is it that I
> can't have all bears "in mind"?

Maybe you can, but "all bears" is not the same as "bears in general".
Perhaps {lo ro bruna be mi} and {le ro bruna be mi} are almost
indistinguishable, but the more open the class, the more the
differences between generic and particular reference can kick in.

mu'o mi'e xorxes

Maxim Katcharov

unread,
May 7, 2006, 9:17:25 PM5/7/06
to lojba...@lojban.org
On 5/7/06, John E Clifford <cliff...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
> Let me summarize where thing lie at the moment
> and where various people are trying to make them
> go. I omit Maxim's, partly because I don't think
> they have really settled down yet and partly
> because I am not at all sure I understand where
> they are at the moment.

(Indeed they aren't.) I'll illustrate my position, as you asked it, by


commenting on or (dis)agreeing with various given background
statements. You'll have to bear with me (pun perhaps intentional) in
my responses below, as I'm less familiar (with some aspects of it).

> Officially:


> {le} and {lo} are distinguished by specificity.
> In addition (as a consequence of inspecificity,
> so it can be taken as pointing somewhere), what
> is referred by {lo broda} to must be a broda. On
> the other hand, what is referred to by {le broda}
> does not have to be a broda (though its being a
> broda is the best reason for calling it one).
> This is a consequence of specificity: we have the
> referent picked out already and the description
> merely gives it a tag -- one that will help
> others to find the right thing as well (the

So specificity is (was?) as follows:

I have something in mind. It might be all bears, it might be a group

of three bears that were ahead of three other bears as they were


chasing us, it might be all bears that chase, and (herein lies your
specificity) it might be the three chaser-type bears that specifically
chased us, or just (some) three chaser-type bears. The former is
specific, the latter is non specific. Is this illustrative?

I disagree with this concept of specificity. If I wanted to say "three


chaser type bears" (non-specific, just that some three), I'd say {ci
lo (ro) broda poi [restricted to also-chasers]}.

In all cases (regarding the inner quantifier), the referent is picked


out. You could mean 10 bears, 20 bears, the referent is there. You
need not even know the number of bears that you mean - maybe you mean
incidentally all, maybe you mean somewhere above one, maybe you mean
somewhere around 10000 - you just don't know how to accurately
quantify them, or maybe you don't want to. The best you /can/ do is
restrict them ("I mean that are also chasers"), or restrict them
absolutely with an inner {ro} - "yes I mean exactly 'they are bears
and they are chasers', in which case you can't say 'well no, I really
meant the ones that are climbers (excluding non-climbers), and are
bears, and are chasers' ". Basically, ("bears that are chasers, all of
them, and so that's exactly what I mean/have in mind").

Adding that inner {ro} means that you're committing to your


restrictions, and no other restrictions need apply. If you think that
maybe you havn't restricted it well enough ("well, I mean bears that
were chasers but perhaps this could be restricted further.."), keep it
at (the default) {su'o}, don't use {ro}.

'{ro} is a commiter' applies to /both/ {lo} /and/ {le}. With {le},


however, you could backpedal and say that your definition of bear (or
chaser) meant that they were climbers also ('bears in my mind were
inherently climbers, no bears existed that weren't'), but you'd
probably just say that you goofed up (on your own definition) and
should have restricted it better or not have used {ro} - just as you'd
do if you messed up on your {lo} restrictions.

Something very important, and perhaps the source of the initial


definition's error: The complete purpose of {ro} is that it finalizes
your restrictions. "Those three bears that chased us (were brown)" is
*not* translated using a {ci}. It's translated using a {ro}. {lo ro
cribe poi jersi mi'o [were brown]}. But in fact the complete

translation would be (perhaps) {ci lo ro cribe cu jersi mi'o


[identical with] ro lo ci cribe cu bunre}. So it seems that English
has a nice way of wrapping an assertion regarding exactly how many
there were right into a sentence. Note the difference between:

"The three bears that chased us (were brown)"
"Those three bears that chased us (were brown)"

The first implies that there may have been other chasing bears ("but I


mean just three, and don't want to bother restricting"), the second
basically contains an assertion regarding how many bears there were.
The first is translated to {lo ci cribe poi jersi mi'o [were brown]}.
The translation to the second is above (involving identity).

All of this is why I considered the zoo example provided incorrect,


and should serve to illustrate exactly how I'm approaching
quantifiers.

Perhaps an aside: Because an assertion regarding how many there were


seems useful, I suggest that ro+# would be the equivalent of "those
three", or "them three-all bears" (suppose a rural dialect) - that is,
you could now pack an assertion of exactly how many there were such

that fit... into your basic statement. This is thought to be a bad


idea in the case of {lo rosoci cribe} "there are things, and there are
91 such that are bears", (er, I may have screwed that up) and it is a
bad idea for something so vaguely restricted, but it would capture the
translation of "those three bears..." perfectly. But this suggestion
can probably wait until this is all sorted out.

> This is a consequence of specificity: we have the


> referent picked out already and the description
> merely gives it a tag -- one that will help
> others to find the right thing as well (the
> correct tag will sometimes -- maybe even often --
> interfere with finding the right thing: calling
> Juno a man rather than a woman, while correct
> would not lead to Juno, since others identified
> her(him) as a woman).

As I hope I demonstrated above, you always have a referent picked out.


But yes, this is exactly what I consider the function of {le}.

> The implicit quantifiers on {le} are {su'o}


> internally and {ro} externally. The implicit
> quantifiers on {lo} are just the reverse. So an
> explicit internal quantifier on {lo} gives the
> number of all the whatevers in the world, while
> one on {le} just tells how many thingies the
> speaker has in mind. External quantifers are
> partitive, how many out of the totality given by
> the internal quantifer are being spoken of here.

I'm undecided on the outer, but I am firm in my current belief that
{ro} should never be an inner quantifier by default for any case.

I am somewhat ignorant of 'Cantor sets' (reduced into infinite
infinitely small sub-things..?), though I think I understand enough
(of sets) to understand (what you're explaining). As for lVi, I think
(perhaps) that the most important thing is that they all do it
together. Questions like "is it true that loi ro countries fought the
country of Germany if the country of England has fought it?" seem not
to affect the discussion.

I don't understand

> then to be somehow expressed in the predicate not
> the arguments but there is presently no way to do
> this in Lojban and no active suggestions how to
> do it. For the nonce then the difference is
> still covered by the lV-lVi contrast, even though
> this leaves some cases uncovered. 2, the
> corporate form, which is about a different sort
> of thing and so might be covered by a gadri, is
> also still covered by lVi, often without noticing
> the difference involved. Should a predicate way
> of dealing with the collective/distributive
> distinction be devised, lVi might naturally be

I'm again lost.

> used for these cases, although they are perhaps
> not common enough to deserve such a central set
> of words. I thin that some people still use lVi
> for the goo reading, 3, although it seems to be
> adequately covered by collective predication over
> pieces of brodas and that locution seems to be
> about the right length for the frquency of this
> sort notion. (Something like this may also work
> forthe corporate model, 2, using the appropriate
> one of a number of predicates for organizations
> of this sort -- if the right ones exist).
>
> Moving lV, as far as I can tell {le} and {la} are
> unchanged, except that the distributivity need
> not be assumed; rather whether distribution or
> collection is meant is mainly left to context,

What is distribution and collection (perhaps with examples)?. It might
help to know that I'm very vague on the distinction between {lu'o ro
lo ro cribe} and {ro lo ro cribe}.

> with the lVi forms brought in where collection is
> crucial and not obvious. Presumably solving the
> predication form of this would allow these gadri
> to be neutral -- just referring to the brodas
> involved without limiting how they are inolved.
> Implicit quantifiers have been done away with,

I assume that implicit quantifiers are basically an additional
assertion regarding how many there are such that..., as I described
above, correct?

> except that the very meaning of these two gadri
> require that there be something they refer to
> (i.e., it is as if the implicit internal
> quantifier were {su'o}) and both distribution and
> collection are about all the members in these
> cases, so something like explicit external {ro}
> is involved. These readings off what is involved
> in specifying seem to be the point which the old
> implicit quantifiers were meant to cover).

My position regarding outer quantifiers is undecided. It's the
difference between
{xu do pu viska lo cribe ca lo nu do vitke le dalpanka} meaning:

{xu do pu viska su'o lo cribe ca lo nu do vitke le dalpanka} - "did
you see some"
{xu do pu viska ro lo cribe ca lo nu do vitke le dalpanka} - "did you
see all (surely meaning did you see all that were in the zoo)"

...and given this example to oppose others that exist, I can't say
which is better.

> The case of {lo} is somewhat more complex. The
> basics are clear enough: it is unmarked for
> specificity and for distributivity. And the

Again (as always, since I think that it's my major point), I wonder
what is meant by specificity. Distributivity is another matter, and I
need to give it more consideration (specifically in terms of the
second non-ro-outer suggesting X-for-each").

I'm somewhat lost here.

> addition, internal quantifiers become part of the
> defining predicate: {lo ci broda} is not three
> brodas bu some (or maybe no?) broda triads. {mu
> lo ci broda} then is five broda triads -- between
> seven and fifteen brodas.

I disagree with this. {ci lo broda} is the triad (formed out of
members of some here-unrestricted group), and the {mu} (five triads
of) is given by whatever-it-is earlier in the sentence. The quoted
version would be inconsistent with what I've described, and I'm very
sure also inconsistent with whatever is the current usage.

> Now, against that background, I wonder if Maxim
> can provide some clarification of his suggestions.

The biggest aspect of my suggestion is that {lo}-types are capable of


handling all cases thus-far provided, and that {le} is /not/ a subset

of {lo}. They are completely seperate. It may as well be that {le}
didn't exist. And, with that in mind, this lets us re-introduce the


{le}-types as a compliment to the {lo}-types, with the very same
usage, except that with {le} you get "by my definition", while with

{lo} you get "by common definition". I'd then imagine that {le} would
be used for more casual speech where you're not explaining /
discussing / arguing anything, and so have the liberty of using your
own definitions (just in case, so why not?), and it allows for
comments like "by-my-definition-the prince of Wales tore down the
curtains" (in reference to a chimp).

Maxim Katcharov

unread,
May 4, 2006, 9:57:46 PM5/4/06
to lojba...@lojban.org
On 5/4/06, Jorge Llamb�as <jjlla...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 5/4/06, Maxim Katcharov <maxim.k...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > On 5/4/06, Jorge Llamb�as <jjlla...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > I think {le} indeed serves to preclude the "any" or "in general"
> > > interpretation that {lo} does not preclude.
> >
> > So... is it then impossible to use {lo'e} in conjunction with "le"? If
> > it is possible, then what do you mean by {le} serving to preclude the
> > "any" or "in general" interpretations?
>
> I will pass on {lo'e} since I don't really know how it works, nor do
> I have a theory on how it should work.
>
> All I meant is that {le cribe cu nelci le jbari} cannot mean "bears
> like berries", it can only be a statement about some particular bear
> or group of bears and some particular berry or bunch of berries, not
> about bears and berriies in general.

The point that I'm getting at is: if {le} basically precludes some
certain subset of {lo} that could be specified by some cmavo, then
this means that it precludes that cmavo. And that's a strange way to
use a word. It's like saying that {le} is {lo}, but never {lo mu} (a
much more extreme example).

{lo ro cribe} means "all bears", yes? What does {le ro cribe} mean?


What if by that same {le cribe} I have "in mind" all bears? Wouldn't
it then be the same as {lo ro cribe}? If not, then why is it that I
can't have all bears "in mind"?

Maxim Katcharov

unread,
May 5, 2006, 12:53:33 AM5/5/06
to loj...@yahoogroups.com
On 5/4/06, John E Clifford <cliff...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
> This is a little like comparing apples and
> unicorns: {lo'e} is logically a very different
> kind of thing from {le} -- or {lo}. It is a
> simple way to state a fairly complex claim about
> a class of things (compare "the average" and the
> like in English); it is not about particular
> whatsises either specifically or in general. Or,
> if it is, it is so by some other means than
> referentially.

yep, my bad. Misunderstood how lo'e was used.

> --- Maxim Katcharov <maxim.k...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>

> > On 5/4/06, Jorge Llamb�as
> > <jjlla...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > On 5/4/06, Maxim Katcharov
> > <maxim.k...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > What does it mean to have the
> > > > bear "in mind"? Is it opposed to, say, "any
> > bear", or "bears in
> > > > general", or "bearness", or "all bears
> > typically"?
> > >
> > > Yes. (Except for "bearness", because lo cribe
> > has to be something
> > > that does cribe, and bearness doesn't.)
> > [...]
> > > > I would like to have what "in mind" means
> > explained.
> > >
> > > I think {le} indeed serves to preclude the
> > "any" or "in general"
> > > interpretation that {lo} does not preclude.
> >
> > So... is it then impossible to use {lo'e} in
> > conjunction with "le"? If
> > it is possible, then what do you mean by {le}
> > serving to preclude the
> > "any" or "in general" interpretations?

So we have lo, which could mean any of the following:
lo'e - the typical
le - not the typical, but some actual concrete (need not be existent)

{lo cribe cu citka lo jbari} - bear eat berry
{lo'e cribe cu citka lo jbari} - bears eat berries (the typical bear
eats berries)
{le cribe cu citka lo jbari} - a bear ate berries (or maybe I think
that bears will come and eat berries, whatever)

...yes? Confusing.


Alex Martini

unread,
May 11, 2006, 10:45:28 PM5/11/06
to lojba...@lojban.org
On May 11, 2006, at 1:58 PM, Jorge Llamb�as wrote:

> [ li'o ]

> As a separate thing, yes. But a kind of bear as bear has to go in x1.
> For example, I don't think you can say:
>
> ro se cribe cu se gacri lo kerfa
> Every species of bear (as a species) is covered by fur.


>
> mu'o mi'e xorxes
>

Why not? It seems to parse just fine to me.

mu'omi'e .aleks.

Maxim Katcharov

unread,
May 7, 2006, 5:04:48 PM5/7/06
to lojba...@lojban.org
On 5/7/06, Jorge Llamb�as <jjlla...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 5/7/06, Maxim Katcharov <maxim.k...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > On 5/6/06, Jorge Llamb�as <jjlla...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > On 5/6/06, Maxim Katcharov <maxim.k...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > > {ro lo ci cribe}
> > > > {ci lo ro cribe}
> > >
> > > In the first case, I'm going to say something about three bears, that each
> > > of them is or does something. In the second case, I'm going to say
> > > something about all bears, that exactly three of them are or do something.
> >
> > You indicate that you say something about what the inner qualifier is.
> > How is it (in the second example) that you say something about all
> > bears?
>
> Consider for example:
>
> ro tadni pu viska ci lo ro cribe
> Each student saw exactly three of all bears.
>
> I'm saying something about all bears: that each student saw exactly
> three of them.
>
> Or for example:
>
> na ku ci lo ro cribe cu blabi
> It is not the case that exactly three of all bears are white.
>
> I'm saying something about all bears: that it is not the case that
> exactly three of them are white.

I see what you're saying. Yes. What I was saying regarding the
inner/outer and specificness: The inner is used to give the listener
an idea of what exactly is being talked about (all bears, three bears,
three bears and that also eat berries, all students and that also
attend), while the inner is that 'said something about them', but you
don't have some specific three in mind, they could be any three, but
there are three.

For the first example, the CLL says something along the lines of there
being more than three bears involved - that is, three for each
student, not necessarily the same three. Chapter 16 section 7.


> > ({xu (do) pu viska (lo ro cribe) (ca lo nu do vitke le dalpanka)}
>
> > In the above, wouldn't you mean {...ro lo cribe...}?
>
> You could say that too. In that case you would be emphasizing the
> distributivity. Something like "I'm asking about bears: did you see
> each one of them?"

My notion was that your example would imply that you were asking me
"did you see that all the bears were indeed at the zoo?" (perhaps
going on to say "No? Well then you don't know if the zoo contains all

bears, do you?"). The point being that your inner ro is not restricted


by anything (like "the bears that were at the zoo"), while a blank
inner would leave it up to context. Your blank outer (if it doesn't
default to ro) implies that you could be asking about some and not all
of all bears (unrestricted). The intent of my correction was to say
something like "I'm asking about some type of bears (I'll leave it up
to context for you to know which): you see each of that group while
you visited the zoo? (aha, probably that-zoo-dwelling-bears)"

> > Perhaps this: You had offered "I think that {le} indeed serves to


> > preclude the 'any' or 'in general' interpretation that {lo} does not

> > preclude". Point being that {le} had something to do with
> > specificness, and that {lo} allowed for something general. What is
> > this general thing? Some examples have been given, with focus on "3
> > bears eat berries" vs. "bears eat berries", where the latter was
> > intended to illustrate generalness. I don't think that it did, since
> > it could only, in my mind at least, mean one of two things: "the
> > typical bear eats berries", and "all bears eat berries", both of which
> > are adequately handled.
>
> Adequately handled by something other than {lo} you mean?
> But that's like saying that tenseless bridi should not exist
> because any tense is adequately handled by other means.

"The typical bear eats berries" is handled (in whatever way) with
specifically {lo'e}, while "all bears eat berries" is handled
specifically with {ro lo ro} - this is an aside from the issue, but in
what case would you need a general term that covers both of these
without specifying which?

> {lo} does not indicate anything more than conversion of a selbri


> into a sumti. If you want to indicate specificity explicitly, you need
> {le},

It may be so that lo covers loi/lo'e (and of course ro lo ro), but
what is this specificity that le is necessary for?

> if you want to indicate universal quantification explicitly, you need
> {ro}, if you want to indicate "typical" explicitly (whatever that turns out
> to be) you need {lo'e}, etc. {lo} does not serve to indicate explicitly
> any of that, but it doesn't preclude those interpretations given a
> suitable context.
>
> > What is the distinction between {lo} and {le} if it is not
> > 'specificness'? And if it is 'specificness', could you illustrate it
> > with a new example, or show how my interpretation of previous examples
> > fails?
>
> I lost track about which of your examples we were discussing here,
> sorry. These are things that in my view cannot be said with {le}:
>
> mi nelci lo cakla
> I like chocolate.

This is either "I like the typical chocolate", or "I like all
chocolate": both covered by what you consider specific sub-cases of
{lo}. (Very probably the former, since you'd want to avoid universal
statments like the latter.) I can't demonstrate much with these, aside
to say that my corresponding {le} forms, {ro le ro} and {le'e} would
just both mean "all of all things that are chocolate by my definition"
and "typical by my definition (i.e. stereotypical)".

> lo cakla cu su'o roi bruna gi'e su'o roi blabi
> Chocolate is sometimes brown and sometimes white.
>
> mi citka lo cakla ca ro djedi
> I eat chocolate every day.
>
> mi citka lo cakla i xu do go'i
> I'm eating chocolate, are you doing the same?
>
> These are things that can be said with {le}, and therefore also could
> be said with {lo} if you didn't care to use {le}:


>
> le vi cakla cu kukte

> This chocolate is delicious.

What does this imply that {lo vi cakla cu kukte} (the lo form) does
not? The le form and the lo form seem identical (aside from that thing
which we've discarded for purposes of discussion), including in their
implications. Better yet, what could the lo form say that this le form
cannot? If you say "those other two cases, the all and the typical",
then, well, yes. That's because (assuming that 'the typical' is a
sub-case of lo), you'd be doing this with {ro le ro} and {le'e}
instead - but this is bringing veridicity into the picture ("by my
definition").

So, what does {lo vi cakla cu kukte} allow that {le vi cakla cu kukte} does not?

> xu do djica lo spisa be le cakla


> Do you want a bit of the chocolate?

> ("this" or "that" would be more idiomatic than "the" in English, but in
> Lojban you can leave which one you mean to context.)

Same question for this...

> ko fairgau le cakla le zvati
> Distribute the chocolate among those present.

...and this.


Maxim Katcharov

unread,
May 10, 2006, 12:05:21 AM5/10/06
to loj...@yahoogroups.com
On 5/9/06, Jorge Llamb�as <jjlla...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 5/9/06, Maxim Katcharov <maxim.k...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > I understand this and see the utility. But I also see a major problem:
> > this approach makes it so that Lojban has no way to refer to all bears
> > specifically (specifically as in the opposite of vague in "in Lojban
> > you can express things as specifically or vaguely as you'd like").
>
> I did a Google search for "the price of infinite precision" and among
> other things came up with this: <http://satirist.org/whale/2001/09/24-clue.html>
> What is that about, does anyone understand?
>
> Anyway, you can be as precise as you want to, if you are willing
> to pay the price.

Well, the point is that you /can/ be as precise as you want to. In the
pen example, I restrict fully, right down to that single pen that I'm
thinking of, using {ro __ ro vica cu penbi}. There's no need to be
"infinitely" precise here: three words (ro, vi, penbi) do the job
completely. In fact, if you do choose the road of restricting it
yourself by using an inner ro, I doubt that you have much to worry
about in most cases. But if a hard case comes along, well, you'd
probably let context do it, but at least you /have/ a way to properly
and fully restrict, if you want to.

>
> The idea that a relevance-independent absolute {ro} makes sense at all,
> in any case, is doubtful. Even for natural kinds, let alone for things with less
> clear prototypes. Would you say, for example, that every bear was born
> to a bear? If yes, how can that be? If not, how can that be?
>

Of course it's useless when it's something so general. But I'm
probably not going to be making any statements about all bears (and if
I was, I'd probably be using "the definition of bear is..." instead).
But what if I want to restrict down to "all bears that are in that
cage", or "all buildings on my street"? This sort of
complete-restriction is used all the time!

I don't understand what you mean by "relevance-independant".

> > What if context overwhelmingly favors three bears? For example, three
> > bears are chasing us -- I say {__ __ ro cribe}, and obviously I mean
> > all these three bears, right? But what if my intent is to say "all
> > bears can't climb trees"? (however wrong I may be.) I have no proper
> > (and consistent) way to say this, because in this case using an inner
> > {ro} clearly would default it to "all of the bears chasing us here-now
> > can't climb trees", which is not what I want to say.
>
> Some strategies that you might use: {lo ro sai cribe} (a more intense {ro}
> than might be expected), {lo ro cai cribe} (an extremely intense {ro}),
> {lo ro cribe poi zasti}, {lo ro cribe poi zasti gi'a xanri}, etc.
>

Well, aside from the sheer strangeness of "an extremely intense 'all'
", there can still be examples provided where that "intense all" still
wouldn't, by context, mean "all bears". It seems like a very imprecise
way to do it. In your last example, the zasti and xanri restrictions
wouldn't do much if that "ro" doesn't restrict to them completely. I
really do think that my suggestion, {L_ cribe} = "all bears in
context" (instead of defaulting to unacceptable {ro} or ambiguous
{su'o}) is a good one for consideration.

Maxim Katcharov

unread,
May 11, 2006, 8:28:49 PM5/11/06
to lojba...@lojban.org
On 5/11/06, Jorge Llamb�as <jjlla...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 5/11/06, Maxim Katcharov <maxim.k...@gmail.com> wrote:

> > On 5/11/06, Jorge Llamb�as <jjlla...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > Then use {lo ro cribe}, that refers to all bears.
> > >
> > By your definition, this means "all" in context (or "all in context",
> > I really can't tell the difference).
>
> The former. Context is unavoidable. The bears don't have to be present
> in any sense in the context. Examples:
>
> "Being the largest of all bears the polar bear can measure up to nine
> feet long."
> lo bercribe no'u lo brarai be lo ro cribe cu jmagutci li su'e so lo ka clani
>
> "All bears killed by people must be accounted for under the quota"
> bilga lo lo ro cribe poi se catra lo prenu cu se kacyvau lo selcrulai

>
> > > In most of these cases the referent of "all bears" seems to be kinds. That
> >
> > Kinds? (The only thing popping into my head is "of species x2")
>
> See the polar bear example, for instance.
>

You're responding to the only two comments made by me that don't focus
on my point - that is, you've skimmed over my point entirely. The
paragraph starting with "Not by your rules. Here..." outlines my
point, and I would appreciate a response to it, as I think that it
shows clearly that there is something amiss with the current usage of
{ro}.

Jorge Llambías

unread,
May 12, 2006, 6:57:05 PM5/12/06
to loj...@yahoogroups.com
On 5/12/06, Maxim Katcharov <maxim.k...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 5/12/06, Jorge Llamb�as <jjlla...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > It's not something that comes up very often, so in my opinion it is not
> > a good idea to waste a short expresion for it.
>
> But it is used a lot.

Could you show an example from some actual usage? I did a
Google search for "all bears" and none of the hits seemed to be
about "all bears that ever existed or will ever exist, real or imaginary,
toy or flesh and blood, in this world or in any other world, etc. etc."

mu'o mi'e xorxes

John E Clifford

unread,
May 9, 2006, 12:08:30 PM5/9/06
to lojba...@lojban.org

{le}'s only *purpose* is to indicate specificity.
It happens that fulfilling this purpose also
allows (maybe even requires) that the
descriptions used need not be veridical. {le}
cannot be used for sloppy descriptions (referring
to things that don't literally fit the
description) unless the referent are already
specified.



> Regarding specificity, what is it useful for?
> The utility of
> veridicity is illustrated by the 'man that you
> thought was a woman
> from a distance' example.

The importance of specificity goes back
historically to the definite descriptor in Logic.
That is a term-maker which selects the one and
only thing that satisfies the description (and if
there are none or more than one yields a false
claim). Now we often want to refer to the onnly
two or the only three, etc. that satisfy a
description but that could not be done in the
logic of the time (it can be done in plural
logic) so Jim Brown (creator of Lojban's
ancestor, Loglan) modified the notion to
encompass the larger possibility. He also notice
that, in English, we often use descriptions
loosely (the Juno case, for example: "That woman
is a man") and so he wanted to allow this also.
When he looked at how logic dealt with this
problem he found (or would have -- I don't think
he really dug in this deeply, but rather intuited
the answer correctly) he found that this kind of
description was possible only if the referent
were already picked out -- that such a
description was in effect a name ("purely
denotative description"), He therefore declared
that {le} worked in this way. That gave him the
problem of referring to things not specified and,
after playing with using only quantifiers, he
came up with {lo}, which in Loglan was rather
different from its Lojban form (and a lot less
clear, encompassing at one time or another all of
Lojban {lo} and much of {loi} and a few other
things as weell -- it changed a lot over time).
So, nonveridicality did play a role in the
development of {lo}, but, once the concept of
specificity was established, its role was
completely derivative.

Well, no. {_ _ ro cribe} refers to all the bears
relevant in the present context, which may be
anything from the couple specifed to all the
actual and possible bears. In a neutral context,
it usually means all current actual bears.

> Now, let's say that you want to say "the bears
> that chase us are brown".
>
> {__ __ ci cribe} refers to three bears (of
> potentially all bears) -
> but you're not restricting it (any further than
> 'are-bears').

I think the parenthesis here is not necessary and
may be confusing. It is enough that they are
bears, what pool they are drawn from is not (at
least so far) relevant.



> {__ __ ci cribe poi jersi} refers to three
> bears that are chasers
> (are-bears and are-chasers) (of potentially all
> bears)
>
> {ro __ ci cribe poi jersi mi'o cu bunre} refers
> to three
> that-are-bears and that-are-chasers, and says
> that exactly each of
> them (incidentally three) is brown.

OK



> {pa __ ci cribe poi jersi mi'o cu bunre} refers
> to three
> that-are-bears and that-are-chasers, and says
> that exactly one of them
> is brown.

Yup.



> {so __ ci cribe poi jersi mi'o cu bunre} is as
> good as ungramattical.

Well, it is contradictory, but it is grammatical
(we can say nonsense very clearly in Lojban.)

>
> {ro __ ci vi ca cribe poi vi ca jersi mi'o cu
> bunre} refers to three
> that-are-bears-here-now and
> that-are-chasers-here-now-of-us, and says
> that exactly each of them is brown. (Other
> bears-h-n+chasers-h-n-of-us
> may very well be brown.)

The parenthesis here applies to the earlier cases
as well. I think the tradition is to attach the
tense markers to the gadri even though they go
with the descriptor's predicate (that is, {lovica
ci cribe}. But I get confused on these more
often than not.

> {ro __ ro vi ca cribe poi vi ca jersi mi'o cu
> bunre} refers to all
> that-are-bears-here-now and
> that-are-chasers-here-now-of-us, and says
> that exactly each of them is brown. (all of
> them must be brown)

Yes.



> {ro __ ro cribe cu bunre} all bears at all
> times/places are brown
> {ci __ ro cribe cu bunre} three and only three
> bears are/were/willbe brown

Well, all the relevant ones anyhow.

> An inner {ro} finalizes/commits your
> restriction in that it says "no
> other restrictions need apply". If you say:
>
> {ro __ ro cribe}
>
> you cannot say that you meant the same
> identity-group/referant/entity/"set" as
>
> {ro __ ro cribe poi bunre}
>
> unless you show that
>
> {ro __ ro cribe cu bunre}
>
> ...good so far?

Let's see: if I say {_ ro cribe poi jersi mi'o} I
can't add further restrictions and be sure I am
still referring to the same thing. But there is
nothing special about {ro} in this; anytime I add
new restrictions I am in danger of changing the
referent. Is it that, if I claim to be talking
about all the whatsises, I cannot then change to
talking about the whatsises that are whatever,
whereas, if I talk about some other number of
whatsises, I could later "clarify" by saying "I
mean the whatsises that whtever." This is true,
I suppose, but I don't see the point. It is not
that {ro} completes the description in some way
that {ci} does not, it is merely that one form of
weaseling is precluded (though I suspect you can
get away with it even then). And, I suppose, the
main prolbme is that I don't see what this has to
do with specificity. You can confine the
description as much as you like, down to the
point where only one thing can satisfy it and
still not be specific (if you have no idea what
if anything satisfies it) and you can have as
open a description as possible "the thingies" and
still be specific.

=== message truncated ===

<<Now, when you have something in mind, like the
pen on my desk, you can
do one of two things:

let context restrict: {ro __ pa vi cu penbi}, {ro
__ pa penbi poi cpane}, ...
restrict it yourself: {ro __ ro vi cu penbi}>>

I am not clear what the point of this
"restricting" is. If you want to refer to the
pen you have in mind, say {le penbi}; if you
think that this is not enough to get your hearer
to the right thing you might add the {vi} and the
{pa] and {ca} and {poi cpana} and whatever else
you think is needed. None of this makes it more
specific, it only helps others get to the right
thing. Nor do various quantifiers all over the
place (they may in fact be confusing -- as may
any addition). And, in this context, you could
add all manner of things to {le ro penbi} to help
the hearer and not make it more (or less)
specific.


<<In the second, I've 'fully' restricted it. That
is, >>

Not in the sense that, with {le}, it may not be
appropriate to add more clauses, if the audience
doesn't get it.

<<the restriction
that I've provided exactly matches the pen that I
have in mind
(there's only one pen here-now). Note that {pa}
is not used in the
second. This is because I'm not saying that there
is one pen that
exists here now. (What I was getting at with ro#,
e.g. {ropa}, was
that people just might ask me how many pens exist
by-me-now, and this
would let me preemptively answer that
question).>>

I am not sure whether {ro pa} is legitimate but,
if it is, it probably means about what you have
in mind: "this bunch is all of the relevant ones
and that comes up to one in number" (I should
note that there is a case made that the internal
quantifiers in {le} descriptions are not
veridical either.)

<<{ro __ ci cribe cu bunre} some three bears (out
of all) each of which
is/was/or will be brown. I'm letting context
restrict. Filling the
blank space:

le: I'm lazy, and I have 3 bears in mind. I don't
want to restrict it
fully, like I did in my pen example.>>

It need not be laziness; it may be that the short
description is adequate, in which case the longer
one is confusing and mildly insulting ("Do you
think I am too dumb to figure which pen you
mean?").

<< Maybe restricting them is as easy
as saying that they're in my back yard here-now
(and those three and
no others are, so I just put in the inner {ro}
and restrict/{poi} it
using 'in my backyard here-now', and I'm set),
maybe it's hard. I just
don't want to do it. So I leave it up to context.
But I do have some 3
bears in mind (that hypothetically can be
restricted-to). Anyway,
those 3 bears are brown.

lo: I don't have three bears in mind. But, I want
to say that three
bears are brown.>>

The {lo} part is no problem, but I still don't
see what ever the quantifier discussion or the
bit about added predicates has to do with the
discussion at hand.


<<ok, I've lost the specificity that you
mentioned, or perhaps I never
had it. See, for that latter one, I'd just say
(in your terms):

{cisu'o le ro cribe cu bunre} (or maybe exactly
ci)>>

Which latter one, I've lost track of the lists.
Certainly {cisu'o le ro cribe} isn't specific
(isn't it {su'o ci}?)

<<And shouldn't that be enough? Back to your
example:

> Not very clearly. Stick to simple examples
until
> we get the fundamentals out of the way.
Suppose

> I say {lo cribe cu citka le jbari}. When I go
and
> check, it does not matter which bears it is
that
> are eating the berries, the statement is true
if
> some bears are eating (have eaten, etc.) the

{su'o le ro cribe cu citka...} ? (or some
specific number, perhaps)>>

Now it does matter which bears are involved.
This will be false if there are none of the
specified bears involved.

<<> berries. On the other hand, if I say {le
cribe
> cu citka le jbari}, the statement would be
false
> even if some bears are eating the berries BUT
> they are not the ones I meant. I know in
advance

{ro le su'o cribe cu citka...} ?

.uacu'i>>

I would take it that the {ro} and the {su'o} are
unnecessary, given that the predication is
distributive (it may not be, but in this case at
least, collective also implies "all") and that
{le} at least always has to have a referent.

Seth Gordon

unread,
May 11, 2006, 1:11:30 PM5/11/06
to lojba...@lojban.org
Jorge Llamb�as wrote:
> In most of these cases the referent of "all bears" seems to be kinds. That
> should be covered by {lo ro cribe}, since a kind of bear is an appropriate
> thing to put in the x1 of {cribe}.

Isn't the kind-of-bear the thing that goes in x2?

Jorge Llambías

unread,
May 10, 2006, 7:35:08 PM5/10/06
to loj...@yahoogroups.com
On 5/10/06, Maxim Katcharov <maxim.k...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 5/10/06, Jorge Llamb�as <jjlla...@gmail.com> wrote:

> > I hope I never said that was my definition. It is not. {ro} is just "all",
> > not "all in context".
> >
> You had stated:
>
> > Well, for me {lo ro cribe} simply refers to all bears, (whatever
> > "all bears" is in the context),

That's right. Do you see the difference between "all in context"
and "all" in context? I need the context to figure out what "all"
quantifies, which in general won't be necessarily restricted to the
things present in the context.

> with regards to your zoo example:
>
> > xu do pu viska [lo ro cribe] ca lo nu do vitke le dalpanka
> > Did you see all bears when you visited the zoo?
> >
> > I don't have any specific bears in mind there, because I don't even know
> > how many bears the zoo has. I do intend to ask about all the bears at
> > the zoo, but all I know about them is that they are all the bears at the
> > zoo.
>
> In the Lojban half of your example, you use an inner ro, which in
> accordance with "{ro} is just 'all', not 'all in context' " should not
> refer to those bears that are at the zoo.

It could, but it need not, that's right.

Which means that your
> Lojban-half is asking if someone had seen all bears ever within the
> zoo, which is contrary to your ensuing English explanation. Am I
> correct?

No, "all" need not mean "all ever".

> > Right. You need context to figure out the precise referent of {lo ro cribe},
> > but it certainly does not normally refer to whatever bears are present in the
> > context.
>
> Erm. "all bears (ever)" /is/ the referent of {__ ro cribe}. If it
> isn't, then "all bears (figure out which 'all' I mean based on
> context)" would be the referent. Which I hope I demonstrated to be a
> Bad Thing.

No, what you showed is that having an implicit restriction to things
present in the context would be a bad thing. But having an implicit
restriction to all things ever would be just as bad.

> Sticking a {ro} into the inner means that you don't need context to
> "figure out"/make a best-guess - though you may very well need to know
> what the context is so that you can make things relative to it.

You always need context to figure out the meaning of an utterance,
in any language. In actual language use, context is always there.
It is only in isolated examples that context might be absent, and that's
why it is not all that fruitful to discuss these things with respect to
isolated examples.

mu'o mi'e xorxes

Maxim Katcharov

unread,
May 11, 2006, 9:54:10 PM5/11/06
to lojba...@lojban.org
On 5/11/06, John E Clifford <cliff...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
> Well, I am not sure how much more clearly since I
> am not clear what the two approaches are that you
> see as being used and as bsiing inconsistent with
> one another. It seems to me that if the Lojban

Quoting xorxes:

<<Position 1: There is a determinate number of things that satisfy
the predicate {cribe}, independent of any context whatsoever. Therefore
in any context {lo ro cribe} refers to all and exactly those things.

Position 2: The things that satisfy any predicate may vary with
context. In a given context {lo ro cribe} refers to all and exactly the
things that in that context satisfy the predicate {cribe} (not just the
things present where the speaker is, mind you, all the things that
relevantly satisfy the predicate).>>

> use of {ro} is inconsistent, then so is the
> English use of "all," the main difference I see

Yes, it is. Just like the English use of most English words is inconsistent.

> being that we have tried to lay out the Lojban
> use with some care, whereas -- linguists aside --
> English speakers are pretty unaware what is going
> on. {ro} (like "all") means everything (or the
> named sort) in the domain of discoure. What is

I understand this usage of {ro}, and my {L_ cribe} (a lack of ro)
implements this usage. However, your {__ ro cribe} implements this
usage, /and/ another usage - either "jump out of context", or "all
ever" -- the former I consider basically the same as the first usage
(and thus useless), the latter I implement with {L_ ro cribe}.

> in that domain -- particularly of the sort in
> question -- varies with the context (which is a
> fairly broad concept, involving what is said,
> what has been said, what is in the attention of
> the conversants, and probably countless other
> things encompassing the whole range of the
> conversant's experiences and knowledge). The

Yep. These factors are used to help the listener pick out which things
are being spoken of. Another (or at least another use of) context is
using it to place things relative to it: if we didn't have this
context, we wouldn't know what "now", or "before", or "tomorrow", or
"here" meant, because they're all relative to the current context. The
latter is necessary just about always, but the former is only
necessary when you aren't being precise enough (when you aren't
restricting enough).

When I say "this pen here-now on my table is blue", I use relative
context (the latter), and disambiguating context is unnecessary
altogether.

> speaker needs to be sure that what he says fits
> into the existing context or change it in
> recognizable ways. He does not always do so --
> or does not do so successfully -- so muddling can
> -- and does -- occur. And then the adjustments
> have to be made. But in all this, where is the
> inconsistency? Indeed, where the two usages?

Quoting xorxes and myself:

<<me: How would you say "let's talk about all bears that have ever existed"?
>xorxes:


> Something like:
>
> e'u mi'o casnu lo ro cribe poi pu ja ca zasti
>

me:


Not by your rules. Here you are inviting me to talk, out of the bears
that are in context, of the ones that have existed and exist. This is
clearly inconsistent. When does {__ ro} refer to all bears? When
someone includes the word zasti after a poi? When all bears in context
clearly already exist? "Aha, clearly he's not talking about all bears
already in context, because I thought that they all exist... wait, was
he talking about more than existing bears then"? And what if all bears
in context don't exist now-before, and I want to suggest talking of
the ones that do? Do the rules of Lojban change based on the context
(all bears in context meet restrictions = new context, if they don't =
modification of current context)?>>

There.

It's impossible for you to specify the context
(disambiguating-context), because you can't jump out of the current
context in order to do so. You basically have to make a statement
that's nonsensical when applied to the current context, and then the
listener says "uh, ok, I guess we're not talking about bears under
that context anymore (or maybe my notion of the previous context was
wrong?), so I'll make a guess as to what the context is now" - and
there's still no guarantee that that the listener will choose the
correct context: If I try to jump out with your {ro} (or your
{rosai}), there's still no guarantee that it'll be all bears - maybe
you're talking about all bears in some other "contextual sense".

> > Precision in picking out a referant has nothing
> > to do with describing
> > the referant down to the last molecule. It's
> > enough to give a
> > description that only the-thing(s)-you-refer-to
> > can meet.
>
> Enough for what? If you get down to a

Enough to let the listener know that you're talking about this pen and
no other, the two cubs that are yours and no other, all bears that
ever existed and not a subset, etc.

> description which only one thing meets, it is
> pretty pointless to add to it if your purpose is

Yeah, it is. You misunderstand my position if you think that I'm
saying we need to be needlessly specific.

> to pick out exactly one thing (or, more likely,
> at most one thing), if your purpose is to give a
> complete description of a thing then obviously

No, I'm not at all talking about giving an object a complete description.

Maxim Katcharov

unread,
May 5, 2006, 5:07:11 PM5/5/06
to lojba...@lojban.org
My suggested definition does not assert that le and lo have /anything/
to do with "the" and "a", which you've clearly demonstrated are
handled by {bi'u}, so I don't understand what you're illustrating.

On 5/5/06, Jorge Llamb�as <jjlla...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Let's do an experiment. This is the definition of "the" from dictionary.com,
> and my comments on where "the" corresponds to {le} and where it does not:
>
> > Used before singular or plural nouns and noun phrases that denote
> > particular, specified persons or things: the baby; the dress I wore.
>
> Yes, that's what {le} is for.
>
> > Used before a noun, and generally stressed, to emphasize one of a group
> > or type as the most outstanding or prominent: considered Lake Shore Drive
> > to be the neighborhood to live in these days.
>
> No, {le} won't do for that.
>
> > Used to indicate uniqueness: the Prince of Wales; the moon.
>
> {le} can be used there, but it won't really indicate uniqueness.
> {lo pa} is better to indicate that.
>
> > Used before nouns that designate natural phenomena or points of the
> > compass: the weather; a wind from the south.
>
> No, plain {lo} will do.
>
> > Used as the equivalent of a possessive adjective before names of some
> > parts of the body: grab him by the neck; an infection of the hand.
>
> Can be used there, but plain {lo} will do.
>
> > Used before a noun specifying a field of endeavor: the law; the film industry;
> > the stage.
>
> No, plain {lo} is better.
>
> > Used before a proper name, as of a monument or ship: the Alamo; the Titanic.
>
> No, that's {la}.
>
> > Used before the plural form of a numeral denoting a specific decade of a
> > century or of a life span: rural life in the Thirties.
>
> Doubtful. Plain {lo} would probably do.
>
> > Used before a singular noun indicating that the noun is generic: The wolf
> > is an endangered species.
>
> No, that's {lo}.
>
> > Used before an adjective extending it to signify a class and giving it the
> > function of a noun: the rich; the dead; the homeless.
>
> No, that's {lo}.
>
> > Used before an absolute adjective: the best we can offer.
>
> That's {lo}.
>
> > Used before a present participle, signifying the action in the abstract:
> > the weaving of rugs.
>
> That's {lo nu}.
>
> > Used before a noun with the force of per: cherries at $1.50 the box.
>
> No, that needs some other construction.
>
> So {le} is "used before singular or plural (no difference in Lojban) nouns
> and noun phrases that denote particular, specified persons or things:
> the baby; the dress I wore." All the other functions that "the" has in English
> are left to {lo} or to something else.


>
> mu'o mi'e xorxes
>
>

Jorge Llambías

unread,
May 10, 2006, 9:57:45 AM5/10/06
to loj...@yahoogroups.com
On 5/10/06, Seth Gordon <se...@ropine.com> wrote:
>
> Someone looking for another intermediate-length project can translate
> this phrasebook:
>
> http://www.zompist.com/phrases.html

Hmm... Here's one:

I understand your language perfectly.

Je parle fran�ais comme une vache espagnole.
Hablo espa�ol como un gringo borracho.
Ich sprechen deutsch wie italienisch Fu�balltrainer.


mi se bangu la lojban tai mu xagji sofybakni

mu'o mi'e xorxes


John E Clifford

unread,
May 8, 2006, 1:16:24 PM5/8/06
to lojba...@lojban.org
<<> The implicit quantifiers on {le} are {su'o}
> internally and {ro} externally. The implicit
> quantifiers on {lo} are just the reverse. So
an
> explicit internal quantifier on {lo} gives the
> number of all the whatevers in the world, while
> one on {le} just tells how many thingies the
> speaker has in mind. External quantifers are
> partitive, how many out of the totality given
by
> the internal quantifer are being spoken of
here.

I'm undecided on the outer, but I am firm in my
current belief that
{ro} should never be an inner quantifier by
default for any case.>>

Well, I think everyone (almost) is agreed on that
-- though for a variety of reasons.

Cantor sets are the regular sets of usual set
theory. The distinction is to differenntiate
them from 1) Lesniewski sets (alias mereological
sums) and 2) ordinary sets used with predicates
that connect to the members rather than just the
sets.



<<As for lVi, I think
(perhaps) that the most important thing is that
they all do it
together. Questions like "is it true that loi ro
countries fought the
country of Germany if the country of England has
fought it?" seem not
to affect the discussion.>>

Don't get the point of the discussion, but the
initial summary is pretty good for sense 1 and
for most of what has survived through the various
discussions.

Just the last bit? A description refers to a
bunch of brodas (one way or another: "bunch" has
at least two realizations) A sentence involving
that description says something about those
brodas -- that they have a certain property. Now
it may say they have that property in either of
two ways (at least): either each of them has it
separately ("My students wear green hats" -- each
of them wears a green hat), also called
distributively, or they may have it collectively
(non-distributively) ("My students surrounded the
building" -- no one of them did, but acting
together they did). In the two examples, "my
students" referred to exactly the same things in
each case, the kids in my classes. What is
different is not in what is referred to but what
is said of it, so the distributive/collective
distinction belongs not with the referring
expression (the description) but with the
predicating part. In addition, attaching the
predication type to the description means some
cases don't get dealt with: in "The people who
surrounded the building wore green hats" the
description is applied collectively (that is, it
is based on"these people collectively surrounded
the building" but the description is used
distributively ("They each wore a green hat").
In "The people wearing green hats surrounded the
building" the opposite is the case. And, in "my
students wore green hats and surrounded the
building, I need "my students" to be distributive
and collective simultaneously -- one for one
predicate, the other for the other. Lojban has
nothing to mark these differences except the
gadri (nothing like "separately" and
"collectively" of the right size), so we continue
to use them when we can and the difference is not
obvious but is important. Mainly, however, we
take it that it is clear from context which is
meant and then we can use {lo} (the least
specified gadri) throughout.

<<> then to be somehow expressed in the predicate
not
> the arguments but there is presently no way to
do
> this in Lojban and no active suggestions how to
> do it. For the nonce then the difference is
> still covered by the lV-lVi contrast, even
though
> this leaves some cases uncovered. 2, the
> corporate form, which is about a different sort
> of thing and so might be covered by a gadri, is
> also still covered by lVi, often without
noticing
> the difference involved. Should a predicate
way
> of dealing with the collective/distributive
> distinction be devised, lVi might naturally be

I'm again lost.>>

Nowadays, {loi} etc. are used mainly for
collective predication, but also for the
corporate model. If we get a way of getting the
collective notion attached to the predicate, then
{loi} could be used just for the corporate model.

<<> used for these cases, although they are
perhaps
> not common enough to deserve such a central set
> of words. I thin that some people still use
lVi
> for the goo reading, 3, although it seems to be
> adequately covered by collective predication
over
> pieces of brodas and that locution seems to be
> about the right length for the frquency of this
> sort notion. (Something like this may also
work
> forthe corporate model, 2, using the
appropriate
> one of a number of predicates for organizations
> of this sort -- if the right ones exist).
>

> Moving to lV, as far as I can tell {le} and


{la} are
> unchanged, except that the distributivity need
> not be assumed; rather whether distribution or
> collection is meant is mainly left to context,

What is distribution and collection (perhaps with
examples)?. It might
help to know that I'm very vague on the
distinction between {lu'o ro
lo ro cribe} and {ro lo ro cribe}.>>

On collective/distributive see above. On {lu'o}
and the like, I haven't seen enough of them to
have an opinion, but, since they seem to relate
to the old difference between {lo} and {loi}, I
think they are on their way out (except they
might work for the missing items attached to
predicates to mark distributivity/collectivity).


<<> with the lVi forms brought in where
collection is
> crucial and not obvious. Presumably solving
the
> predication form of this would allow these
gadri
> to be neutral -- just referring to the brodas
> involved without limiting how they are inolved.
> Implicit quantifiers have been done away with,

I assume that implicit quantifiers are basically
an additional
assertion regarding how many there are such
that..., as I described
above, correct?>>

Implicit quantifiers aren't assertions and, as
noted, have been (in the new ideal) been done
away with. What remains is that at least {le}
descriptions require that there be something
referred to (so as though there were an implicit
internal {su'o}) and distributive predication
claims that all of the referents have the
property involved (so as if an implicit external
{ro}).

I guess I still don't get the point or is it just
that if there are no external implicit
quantifiers we don't know how to take {lo broda}.
I think one version, which takes {lo broda} as
somehow about all brodas, would say that this has
to be read without quantifiers at all (and how
that works goes into metaphysics) while the
other, which takes {lo broda} as being about some
brodas, would say that the assumption is that all
of the some referred to are intended.


<<> The case of {lo} is somewhat more complex.
The
> basics are clear enough: it is unmarked for
> specificity and for distributivity. And the

Again (as always, since I think that it's my
major point), I wonder
what is meant by specificity. Distributivity is
another matter, and I
need to give it more consideration (specifically
in terms of the
second non-ro-outer suggesting X-for-each").>>

I don't see the connection.

Welcome to the club.

<<> addition, internal quantifiers become part of
the
> defining predicate: {lo ci broda} is not three
> brodas bu some (or maybe no?) broda triads.
{mu
> lo ci broda} then is five broda triads --
between
> seven and fifteen brodas.

I disagree with this. {ci lo broda} is the triad
(formed out of
members of some here-unrestricted group), and the
{mu} (five triads
of) is given by whatever-it-is earlier in the
sentence. The quoted
version would be inconsistent with what I've
described, and I'm very
sure also inconsistent with whatever is the
current usage.>>

Well, I agree that this is disagreeable, though I
am not sure I follow your objection. Presumably
a broda triad is {lo broda cimei}, not {lo ci
broda}

<<> Now, against that background, I wonder if
Maxim
> can provide some clarification of his
suggestions.

The biggest aspect of my suggestion is that
{lo}-types are capable of
handling all cases thus-far provided, and that
{le} is /not/ a subset
of {lo}. >>

Well, any time {le} is appropiate, {lo} may be
used instead, but the opposite is not true. {lo}
cannot be used to specify referents.

They are completely seperate. It may as well be
that {le}
didn't exist.

Well, we could get along without the distinction
(and maybe should) but for now we need {le}
because {lo} can't do its job, which is built
into Lojban.

<<And, with that in mind, this lets us
re-introduce the
{le}-types as a compliment to the {lo}-types,
with the very same
usage, except that with {le} you get "by my
definition", while with
{lo} you get "by common definition".

This strikes me as a bad idea, but if you want
that distinction there are other ways to do it in
Lojban -- and {le} doesn't do it.

<<I'd then imagine that {le} would
be used for more casual speech where you're not
explaining /
discussing / arguing anything, and so have the
liberty of using your
own definitions (just in case, so why not?), and
it allows for
comments like "by-my-definition-the prince of
Wales tore down the
curtains" (in reference to a chimp).>>

I don't see the advantage of this, certainly not
for a logical language. Nor for one for ordinary use.

Jorge Llambías

unread,
May 9, 2006, 10:11:18 PM5/9/06
to lojba...@lojban.org
On 5/9/06, Maxim Katcharov <maxim.k...@gmail.com> wrote:
> I understand this and see the utility. But I also see a major problem:
> this approach makes it so that Lojban has no way to refer to all bears
> specifically (specifically as in the opposite of vague in "in Lojban
> you can express things as specifically or vaguely as you'd like").

I did a Google search for "the price of infinite precision" and among
other things came up with this: <http://satirist.org/whale/2001/09/24-clue.html>
What is that about, does anyone understand?

Anyway, you can be as precise as you want to, if you are willing
to pay the price.

The idea that a relevance-independent absolute {ro} makes sense at all,


in any case, is doubtful. Even for natural kinds, let alone for things with less
clear prototypes. Would you say, for example, that every bear was born
to a bear? If yes, how can that be? If not, how can that be?

> What if context overwhelmingly favors three bears? For example, three


> bears are chasing us -- I say {__ __ ro cribe}, and obviously I mean
> all these three bears, right? But what if my intent is to say "all
> bears can't climb trees"? (however wrong I may be.) I have no proper
> (and consistent) way to say this, because in this case using an inner
> {ro} clearly would default it to "all of the bears chasing us here-now
> can't climb trees", which is not what I want to say.

Some strategies that you might use: {lo ro sai cribe} (a more intense {ro}
than might be expected), {lo ro cai cribe} (an extremely intense {ro}),
{lo ro cribe poi zasti}, {lo ro cribe poi zasti gi'a xanri}, etc.

BTW, in your example, I would probably be happy with {lo cribe na kakne
lo nu cpare lo tricu}.

mu'o mi'e xorxes

Jorge Llambías

unread,
May 10, 2006, 10:20:59 PM5/10/06
to lojba...@lojban.org
On 5/10/06, Maxim Katcharov <maxim.k...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 5/10/06, Jorge Llamb�as <jjlla...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > It is not "all" that is open to interpretation, it is "bear" (or whatever
> > the predicate). The set of things that satisfy a given predicate
> > relevantly depends on the context of the utterance.
>
> So you're talking about verificity? I thought that we had put this aside.

No, I'm not, I'm talking about what's relevant and what isn't.
In most contexts imaginary bears will be irrelevant, and so they
won't be referents of {lo ro cribe}, but in some context they might
be relevant and so be part of the universe of discourse.

> {sai} or {cai} aren't a solution, they're a hack that ... well, for
> the purposes of this discussion, make it hard for me to give you a
> sensible example. But one still exists that completery breaks the two:
> we have two favorite cubs, out of a litter of 5, in a
> group-owned-by-us of 10, and they're all playing with some other cubs,
> in a large group. And I suddenly start talking to you about "all
> bears" (however wrong I may be). For all you know, I may be talking
> about the two cubs (your {ro}),

In that context, {lo ro cribe} could not be just the two cubs. You already
mentioned many more bears and therefore they are necessarily a part
of the universe of discourse. Just by mentioning something you make it
a part of the discourse.

> the litter (uh, {ro sai}), our bears
> (...{ro cai}?), the bears in the forest that surround us, the bears in
> the country that we're in, whatever. Point being, there could me more
> than 3 contexts that are a lot more sensible than "all bears".

In a given discourse the context is always one. As the conversation
proceeds, things can be added to the universe of discourse, but to
make an interpretation of a sentence you must first have the context
pinned down somehow.

> I mean,
> given the nature of talking about all bears, there's /usually/ more
> than 3 contexts that are more applicable than it. But I want to talk
> about all bears. I'm trying to start a philosophical discussion or
> whatever.

How do you manage in English? Why would it be any harder in
Lojban? You simply say: "Let's now talk about all bears that ever
existed, or could have existed" or something like that.

Position 1: There is a determinate number of things that satisfy
the predicate {cribe}, independent of any context whatsoever. Therefore
in any context {lo ro cribe} refers to all and exactly those things.

Position 2: The things that satisfy any predicate may vary with
context. In a given context {lo ro cribe} refers to all and exactly the
things that in that context satisfy the predicate {cribe} (not just the
things present where the speaker is, mind you, all the things that
relevantly satisfy the predicate).

I think position 1 is simply unworkable. Notice however that anyone
who thinks it is workable can try to stick with it. Whenever someone
uses position 2 you simply mention to them whatever you think they
may heve left out, thinking it was irrelevant, and then you force them
to adopt your position, because you have introduced into the universe
of discourse what had so far been irrelevant. If you do it consistently
people will just think you are a pest (introducing an irrelevant interpretation
once can be funny, twice can be forgiven, but doing it constantly it
becomes obnoxious).

Maxim Katcharov

unread,
May 11, 2006, 10:06:35 PM5/11/06
to loj...@yahoogroups.com
On 5/11/06, Jorge Llamb�as <jjlla...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 5/11/06, Maxim Katcharov <maxim.k...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > You're responding to the only two comments made by me that don't focus
> > on my point - that is, you've skimmed over my point entirely. The
> > paragraph starting with "Not by your rules. Here..." outlines my
> > point, and I would appreciate a response to it, as I think that it
> > shows clearly that there is something amiss with the current usage of
> > {ro}.
>
> I think I gave my response more than once. {lo ro cribe} refers to all bears.
> Nothing that can relevantly be said to be a bear is left out by it. I
> don't know
> how else to explain it, but obviously I'm not making myself understood by
> you since what you call my rules are not my rules.

We're sitting in a room filled with bears, which is in a zoo filled
with bears, in a forest filled with bears - whatever. We've been
talking about the bears in the zoo for the past hour - their past,
their future, bears that we may own, whatever. Suddenly, I want to
talk about "all bears that have ever existed":

{e'u mi'o casnu lo ro cribe poi pu ja ca zasti}

This suggests that, of the "bears that can be relevantly said to be
bears" (the ones in the zoo only, for some reason), I want to talk
about the ones that do exist or have existed. How do I express my "all
bears", that is, "all bears that have, will, currently exist, in the
imagination, hypothetically, or otherwise", that is "X such that are
bears".

>
> I will respond to the paragraph you indicate, but I will be repeating
> myself:
>
> > > > How would you say "let's talk about all bears that have ever existed"?


> > >
> > > e'u mi'o casnu lo ro cribe poi pu ja ca zasti
> >

> > Not by your rules.
>
> Yes, that's how I would say it.


>
> > Here you are inviting me to talk, out of the bears
> > that are in context, of the ones that have existed and exist.
>

> Not the bears that are in context. All the things that can be relevantly
> said to be a bear.

What's the difference between those "in context", and those
"relevantly said to be"?

> There is an important difference there. Most things
> that can be relevantly said to be bears, in most contexts, will not be
> in the context.


>
> > This is
> > clearly inconsistent. When does {__ ro} refer to all bears?
>

> When does "all bears" refer to all bears? Always.
>

The [lo ro cribe] in your example:

> xu do pu viska [lo ro cribe] ca lo nu do vitke le dalpanka
> Did you see all bears when you visited the zoo?

does not, by your ensuing description, refer to "all bears", it refers
to all bears at the zoo. I guess it's referring to "relevant bears",
the idea being that "all bears" (ever, hypothetical,...) aren't
relevant.

> > When
> > someone includes the word zasti after a poi? When all bears in context
> > clearly already exist? "Aha, clearly he's not talking about all bears
> > already in context, because I thought that they all exist... wait, was
> > he talking about more than existing bears then"?
>

> No, {lo ro cribe} is always "all bears", i.e. all the things that can relevantly
> be said to be bears.


>
> > And what if all bears
> > in context don't exist now-before, and I want to suggest talking of
> > the ones that do?
>

> How can they not exist and yet exist?

My above bear-zoo example does a better job of saying what you just
responded to.

>
> > Do the rules of Lojban change based on the context
> > (all bears in context meet restrictions = new context, if they don't =
> > modification of current context)?
>

> Not sure what you mean by that. The universe of discourse is not
> something fixed once and for all discourses, nor is it fixed once and
> for all in a given discourse either. By its very definition it is molded
> by the discourse itself as it evolves.

Ed Blake

unread,
May 9, 2006, 12:19:47 PM5/9/06
to lojba...@lojban.org
For something non-trivial being translated into Lojban checkout community
translation of 'The Prophet' on the wiki:
http://www.lojban.org/tiki/tiki-index.php?page=The+Prophet&bl
It is just getting started, and it would be great to have an enthusiastic
translator working on some of the empty bits!

Also There was a community translation of 'Alice in Wonder Land' being done.
I haven't checked it out personally, but I had the impression it was rather
complete?

Anyway the "scholastic debates ABOUT Lojban IN English" are really just
people trying to get to grips with how to "writing IN Lojban"[sic] or
"learning OF Lojban" by testing its capabilities. I admit though that it
would be nice to have a place to use and experiance Lojban with other
people... Maybe once the MOO is out of beta (and more people are using it)
we'll have that place.

--- Yanis Batura <yba...@mail.ru> wrote:

> If we could take all energy spent on endless scholastic debates ABOUT
> Lojban IN English, and convert it to learning OF Lojban and writing IN
> Lojban, what would we have?
>
> - A fine corpus of Lojban literature;
Requires time, effort, and more people involved - but there are good examples
available.
> - A set of good-quality Lojban textbooks for beginners;
The lessons and referance grammer are complete and authoritative, if a tiny
bi out of date.
> - Much, much more saturated jbovlaste;
Will be accomplished by language use and community participation (i.e. more
people cusku gi'e ciska gi'e fanva la lojban).
> - Larger number of Lojban speakers;
I think this is more likely now then when I first started learning. The
increasing amount of lojbo voksa audio available will help here (checkout
parallel2 if you haven't).
> - Growth of Lojban community, after all.
This is the hard one. For the near future plan on new recruits being strange
people interested in strange languages. In the long term we may have
something that could compel a wider audiance to learn Lojban...
>
> But alas, this conversion is not at all possible.
eh? Sure some people are more interested in discussing the design and
implimentation of the language, but there are people trying to use it too!
>
> uinai
.iacu'i

Maxim Katcharov

unread,
May 12, 2006, 8:15:10 PM5/12/06
to lojba...@lojban.org
On 5/12/06, Jorge Llamb�as <jjlla...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 5/12/06, Maxim Katcharov <maxim.k...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > I never said that I want to refer to "all bears" unconstrained by
> > anything, in fact I've stated that this would usually be the wrong
> > thing to do - but that shouldn't mean that one can't do it. No, the
> > utility of my inner {ro} is much more obvious when taken in the
> > context of the "all bears in the cage" example (which is an "actual"
> > example, and which you seem to have ignored), where the referant is
> > constrained by something more than "that which is a bear" (e.g. "that
> > which is a bear, and that which is in /that/ cage").
>
> That would be {lo ro cribe poi nenri le va selri'u}. It would probably
> not include bears that were before or will be later in the cage (although
> I can imagine contexts that would make those relevant, as in "all bears
> in that cage always end up getting sick, there must be something wrong
> with it"). Much less likely would it be that it includes imaginary bears that
> are in the cage, though again it would be possible to force it with some
> strong context: "Imagine that that cage is full of bears. Now imagine that
> all the bears in that cage suddenly turn into monkeys...." I don't think
> an expression that in every possible circumstance includes all those
> bears would be particularly useful.
>

What if the relevant bears that we've been talking about for the last
hour are some specific 20 bears, 2 of which are in the cage? (You
strongly suspect that there are more than these 2 bears in the cage.)
{__ ro cribe poi nenri le va selri'u} would say "all of the (those 20
relevant) bears that are in the cage (there are 2)" - but it doesn't
say what I want to say - all of the bears in the cage, whatever number
there is in there, context aside.

The utility of my inner {ro} would be that the listener wouldn't need
to consider context (like those 20 relevant bears), nor be confused by
it where it works against what the speaker is saying (like when I want
to talk about all and potentially not-currently-relevant bears that
are in the cage).


Also, what is the difference between your {L_ cribe}, and your {L_ ro cribe}?

Jorge Llambías

unread,
May 6, 2006, 12:34:17 PM5/6/06