Message-Id: <m0qoXjL-00001DC@xiron.pc.helsinki.fi>
Date:         Sat, 24 Sep 1994 09:56:57 -0400
Reply-To:     "Robert J. Chassell" <bob@GNU.AI.MIT.EDU>
Sender:       Lojban list <LOJBAN%CUVMB.bitnet@FINHUTC.hut.fi>
From:         "Robert J. Chassell" <bob@GNU.AI.MIT.EDU>
Subject:      Re: specificity and metonymy
To:           Veijo Vilva <veion@XIRON.PC.HELSINKI.FI>
In-Reply-To:  <9409240126.AA27617@albert.gnu.ai.mit.edu> (message from ucleaar
              on Sat, 24 Sep 1994 00:25:17 +0100)
Content-Length: 4112
Lines: 104

    > It has been established ... that LE/LO is +/-specific

This is somewhat misleading.  {le} may well be *less* specific to a
*listener* than {lo}.

For example, I have had occasion to say,

    I need a cloud.

I did not have a specific cloud in mind, nor even a specific *type* of
cloud.  Nor was I looking for what I would specify as a manifestation
of Mr. Cloud.  The sociological context of the intended photograph was
that the image to be perceived by the viewer as a cloud would be
considered as a photograph of that which is really a cloud.  It was
not supposed to be a faked photograph.

I could have said,

    mi nitcu le dilnu

    I need/require/am dependent on that which I designate as a cloud.

That utterance would be specific in my mind, but it contains less
information to a listener than

    mi nitcu lo dilnu

    I need/require/am dependent on that which really is a cloud.

The use of {lo} suggests that speaker and listener agree on or have
procedures for coming to agreement on `that which really is'.  In this
circumstance {lo} conveys more specificity than {le}, since one of the
qualities of the looked-for cloud is its reality.

As for metonymy:

I would *not* want to use one of the abstractors to say something to
the effect that

    I want an event or experience with the following affordances...

(The jargon word `affordance' is the use provided by an entity to the
person using it; a door `affords' pushing open, a roof `affords'
shelter.)

I could speak in terms of affordances, and it is often worth while
doing so (especially with doors that appear to signal to you to push
when you actually have to pull them open, or with a set of light
switches in which you switch the switch that you think turns on the
light over the stage and the light at the back of the room comes on.)

However, in this case, I am not speaking in terms of affordances.

Yes, you can say that in some sense, when I say, `I need a cloud', I
am really saying that I am needing certain properties or qualities.
But I am speaking metonymically: the word `cloud' stands for the the
properties or qualities it possesses.  Moreover, the `standing for' is
not supposed to be marked, because marking takes more time and sound..

Much of the time, in any language, I want to speak metonymically.  It
is easier and shorter and communication still works.  (I think that
humans evolved to think metonymically, among other characteristics,
but that is an other topic.)

Hence, when I am packing, I may say

    mi nitcu lo tanxe

meaning that I need the qualities and properties that I am referrring
to metonymically as one or more box/carton/trunk/crate[s].  By using
{lo} rather than {le}, the specification I am making is that the box
must be `for real'; it cannot be just anything that I might designate
as a box; the big paper bag I was looking at won't do.


As for {loi tanxe}: I could be seeking one or more manifestations of
`Mr. Box'.  (I think {loi} is the Lojban equivalent of the TLI {lo}.)

Depending on the context of me and my listener, a manifestation of
`Mr. Box' may or may not be more specific that {lo}.  As far as I can
figure, these manifestations are usually instances of a species.
Children tend to perceive, categorize, and name species-level
entities, like rabbit, before they perceive, categorize, and name
higher level entities, like mammal, or lower level entities, like Jack
rabbit.

I would convey considerable specificity if I were to say

    mi nitcu loi catlu

    I need one or more manifestations of Mr. Cat

(Of course, you don't know the cat's age or sex; but if the context is
is that I need a mouse-killer, the alternatives could be mouse-trap or
poison.)

Boxes lack a `natural', evolved form, so a manifestation of `Mr. Box'
may look quite different to you than what I imagined; but
manifestations of `Mr. Rabbit' and `Mr. Horse' are fairly (but not
entirely) consistent around the world.

    Robert J. Chassell               bob@gnu.ai.mit.edu
    25 Rattlesnake Mountain Road     bob@grackle.stockbridge.ma.us
    Stockbridge, MA 01262-0693 USA   (413) 298-4725