xorlo & mi nitcu lo mikce
wrote:
>
> --- John E Clifford wrote:
> > 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 one really is a non-different case: if they
are never mentioned, then it does not matter
whether they are in the universe or not. For a
variety of reasons — mainly that they might turn
up though you had not thought of that possibility
in advance — a fairly wide sweep is commonly
used and the reference functions used assigned to
cover the cases that are mentioned (the other
cases dealt with in some arbitrary fashion --
within certain bounds, of course)
> 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, that depends on what the quantifiers range
over. Things that are never mentioned or
referred to may still (have to) be in the
universe to get the quantifiers working right in
some cases. Maybe that is what "assumed" means
here.
> > 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?
I didn't say you were re
> > 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
>
>
>
>
>