Date: Sun, 2 Nov 1997 09:48:00 -0500 (EST) Message-Id: <199711021448.JAA08485@locke.ccil.org> Reply-To: bob@rattlesnake.com Sender: Lojban list From: bob@MEGALITH.RATTLESNAKE.COM Subject: Re: le/lo X-To: c9709244@alinga.newcastle.edu.au X-cc: lojban@CUVMB.CC.COLUMBIA.EDU To: John Cowan In-Reply-To: (message from Geoffrey Hacker on Sun, 2 Nov 1997 23:00:09 +1100 (EST)) X-Mozilla-Status: 0011 Content-Length: 5691 X-From-Space-Date: Sun Nov 2 09:48:27 1997 X-From-Space-Address: LOJBAN@CUVMB.CC.COLUMBIA.EDU You puzzle me: ... pragmatics seems to dictate that you will tend to describe a cat as a cat. I am a native English speaker and listener. To me, you are saying that you will tend to _avoid_ describing that which is *not* a cat as if it were a cat. I understand your saying `a cat' as meaning, that which really is a cat. I understand you are saying that when you refer to `a cat', you do *not* want to say, `something that I am describing as a cat, but may be something else.' ... Describing a cat as a small dog, when there is a cat that you could be talking about, and in the absence of any context to the contrary, is rude. It is the deliberate obfuscation of your meaning to your listener. Exactly. I can only conclude from this that when you say `a cat', you really mean a cat, *not* a small dog. ... it would seem extraordinary that the default context would allow you to use {le} with rampant non-veridicality without some clear guidelines for figurative or approximating use in place. Well ... that is the defined use of {le}; veridicality is for {lo}. It may be extraordinary, but that how {le} and {lo} have been defined for some years now. Specifically, {le} is non-veridical. Here is the list of LE cmavo: le LE the described non-veridical descriptor: the one(s) described as ... le'e LE the stereotypical non-veridical descriptor: the stereotype of those described as ... le'i LE the set described non-veridical descriptor: the set of those described as ..., treated as a set lei LE the mass described non-veridical descriptor: the mass of individual(s) described as ... lo LE the really is veridical descriptor: the one(s) that really is(are) ... lo'e LE the typical veridical descriptor: the typical one(s) who really is(are) ... lo'i LE the set really is veridical descriptor: the set of those that really are ..., treated as a set loi LE the mass really is veridical descriptor: the mass of individual(s) that is(are) ... You go on to say, ... I see no compelling reason why someone would want to trick you by using {le} to refer to something different enough from the {le} description that it would cause you to infer the wrong referent. You are making a false presumption that a reference to something `described as' is a trick. That is not necessarily the case. For example, someone might say, `this discussion is a quagmire'. The person is not trying to trick you. She is using a metaphor. She is saying this discussion is not a veridical quagmire, but I am describing it as such, to indicate resemblances. Indeed, I use metaphor frequently, as do my friends, and not as a trick, but as a way of expressing truth. ... The non-veridicality of {le} seems really only to be there to enable you to use figurative language more easily in Lojban, ... Yes; I don't know the designers' intents, but this is certainly one use. And I do know that JCB, while he did not invent the le/lo distinction, did make a great fuss about how Loglan should make it easier to express metaphor. But if your friend says {le mlatu} there will be the corresponding question of what mechanism you are using to determine designations in the conversation. Yes, you are correct. .... Basic veridicality, with certain commonsensical side constraints such as what I have already discussed, seems only logical. No, since what you refer to as "Basic veridicality" is handled by {lo}, and specifically *not* by {le}. For {le}, veridicality is *not* the measure! ... You don't need to be in the dark about {le} because it should only be used when you will know what the speaker does have in mind for a referent in the first place, or at least when you will know that you won't have to worry about what it is if you haven't got it quite yet. Knowing the specified referent does not tell me the referent is true. I think we both understand a person who describes this conversation as a quagmire, but that does not mean that the application of the word `quagmire' is veridical. It is a `described as'. And some people would say a back and forth set of messages is more like an exchange of letters than a conversation in which people talk face to face; they would think of my use of the word `conversation' as a `described as' rather than as an instance of a true category. Of course another person might say that his context includes only those aspects of the concept `quagmire' that are veridical in this conversation. In this case, he should use {lo} or {lu'e lo}. Your default assumptions in English, as indicated by: ... you will tend to describe a cat as a cat. If she really has two cats, there will be strong pragmatic pressure on her to describe them as cats. Basic veridicality, with certain commonsensical side constraints such as what I have already discussed, seems only logical. suggest to me that you are misleading yourself and others when you use `that which I describe as'. It appears to me you more likely mean `that which really is'. -- Robert J. Chassell bob@rattlesnake.com 25 Rattlesnake Mountain Road bob@ai.mit.edu Stockbridge, MA 01262-0693 USA (413) 298-4725