Return-Path: <@FINHUTC.HUT.FI:LOJBAN@CUVMB.BITNET> Received: from FINHUTC.hut.fi by xiron.pc.helsinki.fi with smtp (Linux Smail3.1.28.1 #1) id m0qrv1m-00005XC; Mon, 3 Oct 94 23:34 EET Message-Id: Received: from FINHUTC.HUT.FI by FINHUTC.hut.fi (IBM VM SMTP V2R2) with BSMTP id 4035; Mon, 03 Oct 94 23:34:45 EET Received: from SEARN.SUNET.SE (NJE origin MAILER@SEARN) by FINHUTC.HUT.FI (LMail V1.1d/1.7f) with BSMTP id 4032; Mon, 3 Oct 1994 23:34:44 +0200 Received: from SEARN.SUNET.SE (NJE origin LISTSERV@SEARN) by SEARN.SUNET.SE (LMail V1.2a/1.8a) with BSMTP id 3105; Mon, 3 Oct 1994 22:31:39 +0100 Date: Mon, 3 Oct 1994 17:24:35 EDT Reply-To: jorge@PHYAST.PITT.EDU Sender: Lojban list From: Jorge Llambias Subject: Re: TECH: Transparence / Opaqueness X-To: lojban@cuvmb.cc.columbia.edu To: Veijo Vilva Content-Length: 1951 Lines: 53 la veion cusku di'e > Something still bothers me. If we accept that a structure like > > re lo'e remna > two of all the typical human beings No, this is confusing. There is no such thing as "all the typical human beings" as a group from which to select. {lo'e remna} doesn't have a proper referent. You can't point to someone and say that they are a {lo'e remna}. (You can say that they are a typical human, but that is {lo fadni remna}, which should not be confused with {lo'e remna}). If you are making a claim about {re lo'e remna}, you are NOT claiming that there are two humans for which the claim is true. > means 'any two [typical] human beings' then > > re lo remna > two of all the really are human beings > > ought to mean 'any two human beings' as {lo'e} is more restrictive > than {lo}. {lo'e} is not more restrictive than {lo}. {lo remna} has actual humans as referents, {lo'e remna} has a platonic ideal as a referent. > {lo} requires that the described entity exhibits a > minimal set of characteristics to be considered {the really is}, Agreed. > {lo'e} on the other hand requires that the described entity > exhibits enough of the common characteristics to be considered > {the typical}. But the described entity doesn't exist in the same realm as the entities described by {lo}. The {lo'e broda} exhibits the minimal set of characteristics, and no others. Because it doesn't exist in reality, it is not forced to have individual characteristics like any everyday {lo broda}, which might make it in some way "atypical". > I think we need to be able to express {the typical}, > so either we accept the above or we have to assign a new cmavo > for {the arbitrary}. Even then this type of structure may be > somewhat dubious. I'm not sure I see what is the problem you are describing. Perhaps some examples would be useful. I don't think {lo'e broda} should be used in the sense of {so'e broda}. Jorge