From LOJBAN%CUVMB.BITNET@uga.cc.uga.edu Sat Nov 26 15:44:24 1994
Message-Id: <199411262044.AA14974@nfs2.digex.net>
Date: Sat Nov 26 15:44:24 1994
From: ucleaar <ucleaar@ucl.ac.uk>
Subject:      Re: Some thoughts on Lojban gadri
In-Reply-To:  (Your message of Wed, 23 Nov 94 18:52:59 EST.)
Status: RO

Jorge
> lo'e broda      It doesn't say which one(s), and the question
>                 is not pertinent. (The answer would be "anyone",
>                 but since "any" is such a nasty word, let's just
>                 say that "which one?" can't even in principle
>                 be answered with "that one".)
> le'e broda      Like {lo'e broda}, but restricted to the
>                 kind of broda the speaker has in mind (which
>                 may include not-really broda as well).
> {lo'e broda} and {le'e broda} would correspond to {xe'e lo broda}
> and {xe'e le broda} if {xe'e} was adopted. Currently there are no
> direct equivalents to what would be {xe'e loi broda} and {xe'e lei
> broda}.

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"). Some weeks ago I wrote a discussion of these terms, given
my understanding of them.

Since we have no other way of doing generics, I think "lohe" and "lehe"
should be kept for them.
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'i broda      Same as {lu'i ro lo broda}.
> le'i broda      Same as {lu'i ro le broda}.
>
> I think these are not really necessary, since they are only useful in
> very restricted mathematical contexts, and the long form is much more
> explicit. 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.

----
And