X-Digest-Num: 115 Message-ID: <44114.115.627.959273824@eGroups.com> Date: Thu, 15 Apr 1999 13:23:31 +0300 From: Robin Turner Subject: Re: di'e preti zo nu X-Yahoo-Message-Num: 627 Content-Length: 5349 Lines: 136 la xorxes. cusku di'e > > >(3) lo'e merko cu cladu tavla > >(3) would mean that if a person fulfills both the commonly agreed-on > criteria for > >being American and also has characteristics that are actually held by the > majority of > >Americans but not of people in general, that person talks loudly. > > You seem to be saying that {lo'e merko} is equivalent to {ro lo fadni be le > ka merko} > = "Every one who is typical as an American". Is that what you mean? Hmm, it is a bit ambiguous. The cmavo list defines {lo'e} as "the typical one(s) who really is(are) ... ". Maybe I'm thinking in English: "The typical American talks loudly", which implies what I've said in (3) and is indeed equivalent to {ro lo fadni be le ka merko}. However, given the semantics of {lo}, I'm not sure if this is what was intended, even though the Book gives that impression e.g. lo'e cinfo cu xabju le fi'ortu'a which is tranlsated as The-typical lion dwells-in the African-land. The lion dwells in Africa. and seems to imply {L(x) ^ T(x)} -> A(x) where (using the semantic model I proposed): L -> exhibits the defining features of the category LION T -> exhibits the defining features of the category LION A -> lives in Africa > > > When I have used {lo'e} it has been with a different meaning, and I used it > because I thought that neither {le} nor {lo} made sense, so I needed > something > else and {lo'e} seemed to be the best there was. One much discussed example > I remember was {mi nitcu lo'e tanxe}, "I need a box". > > The distinction between the three would be something like this: > > (1) mi nitcu le tanxe > (2) mi nitcu lo tanxe > (3) mi nitcu lo'e tanxe > > (1) "I need the box." The question "which box?" shouldn't normally need to > be asked because the speaker is assuming that the audience undersands > which box. If the ausience doesn't understand what is it that the speaker is > referring to by {le tanxe} then they have to ask in order to understand the > full > meaning of what the speaker is trying to comunicate. > > (2) "There is a box that I need." The question "which box?" has not been > addressed, but it is a valid question. The full meaning of the sentence > is understood without need of identifying which box the speaker needs, > but the audience is being told that there is at least one box which is the > one needed by the speaker. Consider the translation of {lo zarci} in the Book: "one-or-more-of-all-the-things-which-really are-markets". In this sense {mi nitcu lo tanxe} would mean "I need one-or-more-of-all-the-things-which-really are-boxes". I would see "There is a box that I need" as a near equivalent of "I need the box", since the defining relative clause implies a specific box. I would therefore use {le tanxe} in both cases [note that I am slowly coming round to Jorge's view that specificity is more important than veridicality!]. > > > (3) "I need a box (any box)." The question "which box?" does not make > sense in this case (or rather, the answer is "any one") because there > is no box such that I need that particular one. Here I cannot use {lo} > or {le} and be logically consistent, so I use {lo'e} for lack of anything > else, not because this has all that much to do with typicality. In line with what I've just said, {lo tanxe} is better here. If you say {mi nitcu lo'e tanxe}, you want a typical box, e.g. a medium sized cardboard container, and would not be happy with, say, an ivory snuff box. Given the contexts in which you would say that you needed a box, {lo'e} is possible but superfluous - which is not necessarily bad Lojban, but very un-Gricean! > But if this > is right, then {lo'e merko} is not the same as {ro lo fadni be le ka merko}. > > >(4) le'e merko cu cladu tavla > >(4) would mean that a person who corresponds to my idea of an American, > talks loudly. > > What would be the difference between {le'e merko} and {le merko}? By "a > person" > do you mean "any person" or "a person I have in mind"? Well that gets us back to the old specific/veridical bugaboo again. Perhaps (4) is wrong and should be something like "my idea of a typical American involves the characteristic of speaking loudly", similar to the line in the Book: "Here we are concerned not with the actual set of Greek-Americans, but with the set of those the speaker has in mind, which is typified by one (real or imaginary) who owns a restaurant." Unfortunately, {le'e xelso merko cu gusta ponse} is glossed in two radically different ways: The-stereotypical Greek-type-of American is-a-restaurant-type-of owner. Lots of Greek-Americans own restaurants. The second sentence actually means something quite different, along the lines of {so'i lo xelso merko cu gusta ponse}. .oiro'e.o'onai I have to admit I'm totally confused now! > > >If we can agree on and clarify {lo'e} and {le'e}, they could become very > useful tools > >in argument, particularly in avoiding sweeping generalisations etc. > > I have found a different use for {lo'e}. I don't know if {lo broda fadni} is > such a > frequently used concept that needs a special shorthand article for it. > Besides > {lo'e broda} is not really all that much shorter than {lo broda fadni}. > But it's part of the grammar, and thus more likely to produce a Sapir-Whorf effect ;-) co'o mi'e robin.