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 m0rBjYm-00007EC; Sun, 27 Nov 94 15:22 EET Message-Id: Received: from FINHUTC.HUT.FI by FINHUTC.hut.fi (IBM VM SMTP V2R2) with BSMTP id 0935; Sun, 27 Nov 94 15:22:43 EET Received: from SEARN.SUNET.SE (NJE origin MAILER@SEARN) by FINHUTC.HUT.FI (LMail V1.1d/1.7f) with BSMTP id 0931; Sun, 27 Nov 1994 14:44:52 +0200 Received: from SEARN.SUNET.SE (NJE origin LISTSERV@SEARN) by SEARN.SUNET.SE (LMail V1.2a/1.8a) with BSMTP id 4443; Sat, 26 Nov 1994 23:38:57 +0100 Date: Sat, 26 Nov 1994 17:45:10 EST Reply-To: jorge@PHYAST.PITT.EDU Sender: Lojban list From: Jorge Llambias Subject: Re: Some thoughts on Lojban gadri To: lojban@cuvmb.cc.columbia.edu Content-Length: 2741 Lines: 61 Re my peculiar interpretation of lo'e and le'e says And: > I'd always assumed these were inceived into Lojban to handle generics > ("The lion lives in Africa", "The dodo is extinct", "The dodo ate > grubs"). This is compatible with my view, I think generics are opaque references. Notice that in Lojban, "the lion lives in Africa" is as much a claim about lions as it is about Africa. It is the same as "Africa is lived in by the lion". Consider {la afrikas se xabju lo'e cinfa}. It is clear what is the referent of {la afrikas}, but what is the referent of {lo'e cinfa}? Is it some abstraction? Are we claiming that an abstraction lives in Africa? No, {lo'e cinfa} doesn't have a referent, which happens to be in relationship {xabju} with the referent of {la afrikas}, it is an opaque reference to lions, just as "a box" is an opaque reference to boxes in "I need a box". > Some weeks ago I wrote a discussion of these terms, given > my understanding of them. That was during the period I was unvoluntarily unsubscribed, so I never got to read it. > Since we have no other way of doing generics, I think "lohe" and "lehe" > should be kept for them. I agree, I don't mean them to lose that meaning. > BUT the difference between "typical" and "stereotypical" is not very > useful - Lakoffs Women, Fire & Dangerous Things includes these two > in a much longer list of metonyms where a member of a category > represents the category, so it seems rather arbitrary to select just > two of them. Instead, I would like to see lohe/lehe used to > distinguish class generics from member generics, as in: > The dodo is extinct, The dodo survived for millions of years. > The dodo ate figs, The dodo had a lifespan of ten years. {lo'e} works for the member generics, and I would use {le'e} for member generics with in-mind restrictions (maybe for "figs" in your example?) For the class generics, you can use {piro loi cipnrdodo}, I think, since it is not really an opaque reference. > > One of these days I'll publish my cmavo blacklist, with all > > the cmavo that I think are unnecessarily cluttering up cmavo space > > (quite a number of them) :) > > Why not publish it sooner rather than later. I've sometimes suspected > that some were bunged in without sufficient thought (e.g. lehe, zuho > and the other NUs for aktionsart), which, if true, is ironic, given > the agony these days involved in making the case for an extra cmavo. > And who would weep at the loss of a few cmavo? There's less to learn, > which is a boon, given that they're all so similar in form. Well, I don't think any will be officially decommissioned at this stage, but maybe with some luck they will remain unused until everyone forgets they exist. Jorge