Date:  Wed, 12 Nov 1997 07:32:04 -0500 (EST)
Message-Id: <199711121232.HAA00416@locke.ccil.org>
Reply-To: And Rosta <a.rosta@UCLAN.AC.UK>
Sender: Lojban list <LOJBAN@CUVMB.BITNET>
From: And Rosta <a.rosta@UCLAN.AC.UK>
Organization: University of Central Lancashire
Subject:      Re: le/lo
X-To:         LOJBAN@cuvmb.cc.columbia.edu
To: John Cowan <cowan@LOCKE.CCIL.ORG>
X-Mozilla-Status: 0011
Content-Length: 2134
X-From-Space-Date: Wed Nov 12 07:32:07 1997
X-From-Space-Address: LOJBAN@CUVMB.CC.COLUMBIA.EDU

Robin Turner:
> As a beginner I am not sure about the subtleties of the le/lo debate, but I
> feel obliged to comment on the metonymy issue.  I don't think it is OK to
> use "lo xunre" to mean "the woman with the red handbag", though "le xunre"
> would be fine.  I appreciate the point that we can use metonymy to infer
> the intended meaning, but I think the whole point of "lo" is that it
> precludes metaphor or metonymy as far as is humanly possible.  "lo xunre"
> means "that which really is red", while "le xunre" means "that which I call
> 'red'", possibly because I am using metonymy.  Because we use metonymy and
> metaphor so much (usuallly without being aware of it, as Lakoff and Johnson
> so admirably point out),  "le" is best seen as the unmarked form; we would
> be better off using "lo" only when we specifically want to say that as far
> as we know, the referent of the sumti _really_ is what we say it is, and
> not something metaphorically or metonymically associated with it.  Another
> way of putting it might be "For the purposes of this conversation, I wish
> to adopt an objectivist paradigm in which there are definite entities which
> correspond to specific words, and I assert that the entity in question
> really does correspond to this word."  Phew!

I've given my reasons for arguing a contrary position in
separate posts. To what you say, I would respond that you
are failing to distinguish between "what-is-said" (i.e. what
is encoded in the sentence) and "what-is-implicated" (i.e.
what proposition the hearer infers from what-is-said). It
is an elementary lesson of pragmatics that what-is-said and
what-is-implicated are different not only in kind but also
in content. (I am presuming you know this: I'm not trying to
patronize or browbeat.)

Lojban tells us what is encodable. The what-is-implicated
is governed by pragmatics, which is part of the domain not
of language proper but of communication and cognition in
general. I think it is improper of the Lojban community
to try to legislate on matters pragmatic: my reasons, given
elsewhere, are partly philosophical and partly practical.

--And