Date: Mon, 3 Nov 1997 07:46:46 -0500 (EST) Message-Id: <199711031246.HAA21415@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 Mon, 3 Nov 1997 11:28:56 +1100 (EST)) X-Mozilla-Status: 0011 Content-Length: 6956 Lines: 178 > ... what you refer to as "Basic veridicality" is handled by {lo}, > and specifically *not* by {le}. For {le}, veridicality is *not* > the measure! An arbitrary position, It is *not* arbitrary. The word `non-veridical' is from the definition! Remember, every time you use {le} you are using something that *by definition* is non-veridical. You cannot escape that. If you have issues with specificity, you must revise your way of saying Lojban to provide the specificity or lack thereof. That is partly what this is about. There is no reason to prefer your use of articles to the way most Lojbanists use them. Essentially, what you have is an idiolect. Well, you cannot claim, using the current baseline, that {le mlatu}, without further context, really is a cat. But you have said that you like to refer to a cat, in the veridical sense, as `a cat'. Hence, if you want to follow the baseline, you may need to express yourself differently than you have in the past. > Knowing the specified referent does not tell me the referent is true. ? A referent cannot be "true" or "false". It can only either exist or not exist. There is a misunderstanding here. If I refer to a small dog as an animal that I am describing as a cat, that animal is not truly a cat. The question is not whether the referent exists; it is a question of whether the referent is truly a cat. Indeed, if I refer to a small unicorn as a cat, the referent will not exist in the conventional meanings of exist. Bear in mind that {le} and {lo} can be described as `operators', like `sine' and `cosine', to use a mathematical comparison. {lo} returns as its value not only a pointer to a referent, but also a statement as to whether that referent `really is at least one of all of them'. {le} returns as its value not only a pointer to a referent, but also a statement as to the one or more specific things the referent can be `described as'. As for default assumptions: I can flip that argument on its head and turn it against you. Your default assumption that "lo" refers to a specific thing ... But I am *not* claiming that! You have misunderstood. I am claiming, as I wrote earlier: As John says in Chapter 8.6: ... what does ``lo prenu ... '' mean? Well, the default inner quantifier is ``ro'' (meaning ``all''), and the default outer quantifier is ``su'o'' (meaning ``at least one''). Therefore, we must first take all persons, then choose at least one of them. In an unconstrained universe of discourse, {lo mlatu} therefore means something like: at least one of all that really is or are cats In certain contexts, as I said, {lo} can be translated as `the', and obviously, in other contexts it cannot. If in the context of the discussion, there is one real cat, `the' is appropriate. If there is more than one real cat, `the' is not appropriate, since {lo} is better translated as one-or-more-of-all-the-things-which-really-is-or-are You go on to say: Essentially, there are two different, competing ways of interpreting "le" and "lo": (1) Use a non-veridical descriptor to be veridical by default - I agree that that's confusing, but it's also the standard way it seems to be used by Lojbanists. I agree this is a way you are using it. But the baselines states specifically that {le} is one of the non-veridicals. It is a waste of interesting Lojban not to use the veridical/non-veridical distinction that Lojban possesses. (2) Use a non-specific descriptor to be specific by default - that's your usage, and it's just as confusing, except that it's nonstandard. No, I am *not* suggesting or recommending this. On the contrary, I have said numerous times that specificity depends on context. Nothing default about it. Perhaps I have not been sufficiently emphatic; let me repeat what I said earlier: I urge English speakers to use the long, somewhat unwieldy glosses rather than the short ones. {le} one-or-more-specific-things-which-I-describe-as {lo} one-or-more-of-all-the-things-which-really Further, I urge people to be alert to context and the geography of the universe of discourse; and to specify it when it is not clear, just as they do with utterances that include {zo'e}. You go on to say: The real problem is that the le/lo distinction is crude. It forces a choice between whether specificity is more important than veridicality, This may be the crux of the matter. (And you will note that in this context {le te kruca} is an appropriate use of {le}!) The le/lo distinction does *not* force such a choice. It does force speaker and listener to be sure of their mutual context, but then, so do all other forms of communication. As an experiment, translate each of your uses of {le} with the long gloss; similarly with {lo}; and pay attention to context. The problems of specificity will or will not make themselves felt, as the case may be. When they do make themselves felt, you have to use the other standard Lojban methods for specification, such as expressing color or number or tense. ... but you will inevitably have to ignore one or the other aspects of the articles. You ignore specificity, I ignore veridicality. No. You will see that does not happen. For example, Xorxes starts his recent message by saying: i le nunsnu be la djef joi la bob One or more specific events which I describe as a discussion or talk between Geoffrey and Bob That is proper use of {le} (unless, as I mentioned in my previous message, you want to say that our form of electronic message writing `really is' a discussion/talk). Furthermore, since it does not matter whether we think of this exchange as one or more than one event, Xorxes does not need to state the number of events, which is a distinction often conveyed by `a' or `the' in English. This utterance is quite different from English, where you do have to state singular or plural. But at the same time, the referent is specific; both you and I know what Xorxes is talking about. Indeed, you will notice that Xorxes consistently writes about things `described as'; he tends to expresses himself metaphorically. He speaks, for example, of people's ongoing use of {le} and {lo} as {le cuntu}, one-or-more-specific-things-which-I-describe-as an affair/organized activity involving person(s) He does not claim that the usage `really is' organized; indeed,by using {le}, he makes the subtle suggestion that perhaps it is not really organized; that the usage is not so well thought out. But he does not come out and make a big thing about that, but requests we write in Lojban. Very clever of him. -- Robert J. Chassell bob@rattlesnake.com 25 Rattlesnake Mountain Road bob@ai.mit.edu Stockbridge, MA 01262-0693 USA (413) 298-4725