Return-Path: Received: from SEGATE.SUNET.SE by xiron.pc.helsinki.fi with smtp (Linux Smail3.1.28.1 #1) id m0tKSYz-0000ZUC; Tue, 28 Nov 95 18:07 EET Message-Id: Received: from listmail.sunet.se by SEGATE.SUNET.SE (LSMTP for OpenVMS v1.0a) with SMTP id 71B1ACEA ; Tue, 28 Nov 1995 17:07:21 +0100 Date: Tue, 28 Nov 1995 11:04:43 -0500 Reply-To: "Robert J. Chassell" Sender: Lojban list From: "Robert J. Chassell" Subject: Re: Fuzzy Fallacies X-To: LOJBAN@cuvmb.cc.columbia.edu X-cc: bob@rattlesnake.com To: Veijo Vilva In-Reply-To: (plschuerman@ucdavis.edu) Content-Length: 4237 Lines: 93 Peter L. Schuerman: Perhaps this is a suicide mission, but I can't resist trying one more time to make a fundamental point clear. Adjectives such as tall, bald, heap, etc. are not objectively defined, and not objectively used. Yep, you have gone on a suicide mission. :-( You have run into the ack-ack of the `other places'. :-) As John Cowan mentioned, this is Lojban. Let's talk about George's tallness in Lojban: .i la djorj cu condi One could translate this as `George is tall.' but that is misleading. The utterance is actually a predication concerning four arguments. A less misleading translation is: There is a relationship of depth/height/tallness among: x1, entity that is high or deep: George x2, in direction/property: <> x3, away from reference point: <> x4, by standard: <> Bear in mind that unless you use the much deprecated {zi'o}, *every* Lojban utterance includes all the places of the selbri. Some places, however, may have a value that is not overtly specified, as in this example. Fundamentally, in Lojban, when you talk of George being tall, you are *also* saying "by standard x4". There is always a standard. The standard may not be expressed overtly. There are two ways the standard is kept covert. One is to leave out the sumti for the standard, which is what I did in the example. The other way is to use the cmavo {zo'e} for the sumti. In either case, the presumption is that the listener knows enough so as to be able to fill in what is useful in that place. If not, the listener can ask for further information. To use your example regarding fire, the presumption is that the listener knows that fire is hot, and what the listener thinks of as `hot' is sufficiently similar to the the speaker thinks of as `hot' that the two manage to communicate well enough. Put another way: regardless of whether the standard for tallness or hotness or baldness is `subjective' or `objective', it is *shared*. The appropriate Lojban term for my response to your message is {na'i}, which is the metalinguistic negator. The distinction between `subjective' and `objective' that you are making is not really relevant to the issue at hand. The relevant issue is whether Lojban has the tools needed to communicate all that people might want to say about a standard. (I think it can, as I have said elsewhere.) (Bear in mind also that if a selbri lacks a regular place for the standard, a speaker can attempt to express a standard using {ma'i}, "in reference frame". Even a selbri without a `by standard' place, such as {claxu} or {gleki}, has the possibility of being incorporated into an utterance that does express a standard.) People often want to communicate subjective notions. These may be hitherto uncommuncated or hard to communicate. One standard way to communicate a subjective notion is to invent tools to measure it, and convert it to an objective notion. This is hard to do. A second standard way to communicate a subjective notion is to point to examples that illustrate what you mean. Humans are sufficiently similar that your interlocutor can often figure out what you mean, even when you don't spell out what you mean, even if you cannot say in words what you mean. (Of course, the pointing and learning may not be conscious or organized: adults are often unaware what children are learning from them, and the children are not reflecting on how they are learning.) Lojban incorporates `by standard' into the meaning of a selbri. What this does is decrease the salience of the subjective/objective distinction, and increase the salience of the question "how do I successfully communicate this subjective notion?" This leads me to a prediction: because of the difference in salience, I predict that Lojban speakers will be more likely to focus on how to communicate emotions rather than on the implications of a subjective/objective distinction. Robert J. Chassell bob@gnu.ai.mit.edu 25 Rattlesnake Mountain Road bob@rattlesnake.com Stockbridge, MA 01262-0693 USA (413) 298-4725