WikiDiscuss

---

> The objection is (to repeat myself) that on your
> view (things aren't in the universe until
> mentioned)

Not my view at all.

> You actually said that mentioning it the first
> time *introduced* it into the universe of
> discourse, whence I infer it was not there
> before.

If I recall correctly, you asked how things that
were not in the universe of discourse could
be introduced into it and I said one obvious
way of doing that was to mention them. If my
recollection is inaccurate, that's what I meant
so hopefully we are now clear.

> You may have *meant* something like "if
> I mention it then it is in the u/d even if not
> previously obvious that it was" or some such, but
> it is hard to take your words in that sense.

That's indeed what I meant.

> On the other hand, I am glad to see that your
> sense of u/d is not hopelessly diffderent from a
> normal pone, for all that its operations are put
> rather strangely.To be sure, what is in the u/d
> varies with context, but it takes a fairly
> clearly specialized context to leave out gross
> physical objects, even when most of them go
> unmentioned.

Really? I would think in most contexts most gross
physical objects are left out.

This is what dictionary.com has for "universe of
discourse":

universe of discourse
n. Logic
A class containing all the entities referred to in a discourse or an argument.
Also called universe.

universe of discourse
n : everything stated or assumed in a given discussion syn: universe

Most things in the physical universe are not referred to
in most discourses or arguments, nor stated or assumed
in most discussions.

> Well, the Gricean line is that the u/d must be
> decided by the interaction of the interlocutors.
> If one of the participants wants it to be
> crucially different from the (loosely defined, to
> be sure) standard set (roughly gross physical
> objects and — for Lojban — all abstracta) then
> he must make that difference overt at the
> beginning.

The standard set? There is a standard set of things
that Lojbanists are required to talk about?

> Failing to do so is an offence in the
> language game. The air molecule guy is probably
> at most weakly in violation, but maybe in
> violation none the less — even on the standrd
> notion of u/d and certainly on the notion you
> (only, apparently) seem to have been presenting.

Which guy is in violation according to you, the
one that says the box doesn't contain anything or
the one that points out that it contains air?
It seems to be a normal negotiation of the
universe of discourse.

mu'o mi'e xorxes

__
Do you Yahoo!?
The all-new My Yahoo! - Get yours free!
http://my.yahoo.com