WikiDiscuss

WikiDiscuss


BPFK Section: Inexact Numbers

posts: 1912


pc:
> The point is that in the real
> world things come singly and each or several of
> them do something to accomplish what we say
> happens. What we say may be vague in a variety
> of ways, but what happens is not. But however
> vague our talk may be, it has to hook up with
> what happens in some way and thus has to take
> account of the fact that every event involves
> some number of things. Whatever we say is then
> going to reflect this some how, at the risk of
> not saying anything about the world or saying
> impossible things.

That's all metaphysics, it is not something one needs
to believe in order to speak Lojban, or English for
that matter. What counts as a thing is not dictated by
the language, need not be context independent, and need
not be specified in the description of the language.


> Well, as you know, I think {lo broda} is just a
> quantified expression (not equivalent to {su'o
> da}, howver, which is more complex) and that
> takes care of generality or particularity
> depending on context and usage. For general
> contexts, the quantifiers involved tend to be
> pretty vague (typically more than "most" and less
> than "all") with details coming in from further
> context. But what the cointexts fills in is how
> we go about answering the question "is this claim
> true?" Will a not even very random sample do or
> is more research needed, where is the
> cost/benefit break in research — and in
> confirming or denying, for that matter.

I can't tell from that how your take would differ from mine.
If {lo broda} always has a context dependent and very complex
quantifier, your interpretation may in effect very well end
up agreeing with my interpretation in all cases. We would
need example sentences that we would interpret differently
in a given context to decide.

> > > But {lo rozgu cu
> > > xunre} is not limited to taht use; it does
> > > perfectly well as the beginning of a story
> > about
> > > a totally particular event — a date, say.
> >
> > It certainly does. It all depends on the
> > context.
>
> If you agree to that, then you will concede that
> your first definition (second too but for
> different reasons) is just wrong. {lo} is not
> generic in the sense you seem to want, though it
> can be used in that way

What wording would you suggest for the definition?
Would you be happy with it if I remove the "generically"?

> At most these ways share the feature of
> being inspecific, just what we would expect from
> the usual contrast with the specific {le} — a
> contrast omitted in your second definition and
> misstated in the first.

The specificity is included in that definition by requiring
the {skicu} relationship to hold between the speaker, the
audience and the thing in question. The speaker has to have
the thing in mind in order to describe it to the audience.
I'm sure the definition can be improved, but I don't think
it's hopeless.

mu'o mi'e xorxes




___
Do you Yahoo!?
Declare Yourself - Register online to vote today!
http://vote.yahoo.com