Message-Id: <199411262247.AA17374@nfs2.digex.net>
From: Jorge Llambias <jorge@PHYAST.PITT.EDU>
Date: Sat Nov 26 17:47:02 1994
Subject:      Re: Some thoughts on Lojban gadri
Status: RO
X-From-Space-Date: Sat Nov 26 17:47:02 1994
X-From-Space-Address: LOJBAN%CUVMB.BITNET@uga.cc.uga.edu

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