[YG Conlang Archives] > [jboske group] > messages [Date Index] [Thread Index] >
Lojbab:
> At 11:15 PM 1/4/03 +0000, And Rosta wrote:
> > > >You are being perversely confusing here
> > > >
> > > >You drink {pisu'o loi djacu} = part of the mass of water
> > > >You do not drink every part of the mass of water
> > > >
> > > >If you drink the mass of water, then you probably drink every part
> > > >of it
> > >
> > > Why? In English, if I drink a glass of water, I do not guarantee that
> > > every molecule of hydrogen dioxide has moved from the glass to my gullet
> >
> >You need to understand what pragmatics is, which we personify as
> >Grice. I would have hoped that in these discussions we could take it
> >for granted that we all understand this
> >
> >If you drink a glass of water, then there is none left once you
> >have drunk it. What qualifies as 'none left' is determined by
> >ordinary criteria of relevance
>
> Correct, but LOGIC is orthogonal to pragmatics. When one is being
> hyperlogical, one is ignoring pragmatics. All means ALL, not almost
> all.
This is a warped notion of hyperlogicality. All means all, not almost
all -- that is a matter of logic/semantics. But whether "all of"
can describe something short of "every molecule of" is a matter of
pragmatics. This sort of confused inability to distinguish logic
and pragmatics has hampered Lojban for too long and led to silly
notions like the idea that logical precision adds complexity and
hence should add verbosity.
> This is why I introduced da'a (which BTW I think should be used
> instead of me'iro, which flashed by my screen in the last couple of days in
> some context).
The general opinion, which I share, is that the standard {pa} default
is useful for {da'a} (e.g. giving 'penultimate'), while {ro} is the
most sensible default for {me'i}.
> People including logician considered a superlative to mean
> "more than ro" and this is logically impossible since nothing is more broda
> than itself. Pragmatics (and all natural language) understands this, but
> it is logically wrong
I don't know what you mean. It sounds like nonsense. What are the
grounds for analysing superlatives as "more than ro"?
> Invoking Whorf, if I say that noda poi jelca is in the drum, then that
> really means NOda, and lighting a match should be safe
I can't see any grounds for invoking Whorf here; it seems to have
nothing to do with Whorf. Instead, you should invoke Grice and do
a bit of inferncing before lighting the match.
> > > >But if you touch the mass of water, then you probably
> > > >touch just part of it. Likewise, if I eat Nick then I probably eat
> > > >(almost) every part of him,
> > >
> > > If I eat the chicken, I probably leave the bones behind. If I were
> > > cannibalistic, I would probably do the same with Nick
> >
> >The point is that it is a predicate-specific property how much of
> >the sumti is affected. For some predicates the amount affected is
> >"approximately all relevant bits"
>
> Predicate logic demands that any "predicate-specific properties" be handled
> by the place structures, so as to be transparent at the meta level that the
> logic and grammar are operating. An operation on a predicate should work
> the same way regardless of what the predicate means
Again, I have no idea what you mean.
> > > >Your reasoning is based on (a) deliberately failing to distinguish
> > > >the mass from part of the mass, and (b) taking {pi ro} to mean
> > > >"every part of", which we have already agreed to be error
> > >
> > > Why? If it doesn't mean every, then use pida'a
> >
> >Does pimu mean "1 part in every 2 of", or "a half of"?
>
> In base ten it means ".5 of" which is either of those (I'm not sure I see
> the difference)
"pa lo re si'e" would be a continuous half, such as is found in a
tin of apricot halves. Reading "pimu" as "1 part in every 2 (same-sized)
parts of" makes me find piPA more useful, so I don't want to argue
against it.
What are the default quantifiers for li, lo'i, le'i, lu, zo?
--And.