From pycyn@aol.com Sat Oct 27 13:37:39 2001
Return-Path: <Pycyn@aol.com>
X-Sender: Pycyn@aol.com
X-Apparently-To: lojban@yahoogroups.com
Received: (EGP: mail-8_0_0_1); 27 Oct 2001 20:37:39 -0000
Received: (qmail 71783 invoked from network); 27 Oct 2001 20:37:36 -0000
Received: from unknown (10.1.10.27)
  by l8.egroups.com with QMQP; 27 Oct 2001 20:37:36 -0000
Received: from unknown (HELO imo-m02.mx.aol.com) (64.12.136.5)
  by mta2 with SMTP; 27 Oct 2001 20:37:36 -0000
Received: from Pycyn@aol.com
	by imo-m02.mx.aol.com (mail_out_v31_r1.8.) id r.da.e33ee0d (4313)
	 for <lojban@yahoogroups.com>; Sat, 27 Oct 2001 16:37:22 -0400 (EDT)
Message-ID: <da.e33ee0d.290c7501@aol.com>
Date: Sat, 27 Oct 2001 16:37:21 EDT
Subject: Re: [lojban] a construal of lo'e & le'e
To: lojban@yahoogroups.com
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="part1_da.e33ee0d.290c7501_boundary"
X-Mailer: AOL 6.0 for Windows US sub 10535
From: pycyn@aol.com
X-Yahoo-Profile: kaliputra
X-Yahoo-Message-Num: 11693

           
--part1_da.e33ee0d.290c7501_boundary 
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

In a message dated 10/26/2001 7:23:17 AM Central Daylight Time,=20
a.rosta@ntlworld.com writes:


> There is nary a shred of consensus about what {lo'e} and {le'e} mean.
> The main proposed interpretations that have some currency are:
>=20
> 1. Something similar to {lo fadni be X} or {le fadni be X}.
>=20

Surely, {le fadni be fi X}, since it clearly has some relation to a class o=
f=20
things.  It may also be restricted in what properties are considered, but=20
that is secondary.

<2. The fuzzily-defined xorxesian usage seen in {nitcu lo'e tanxe},
{djica lo'e pendo}, {kalte lo'e mirli}.>

But isn't this just one of those rare errors on xorxes part, meaning {tu'a =
lo=20
broda} but trying to preserve English (surface) structure?  Maybe we cannot=
=20
generalize on  {lo'e} but it still seems carry more existential commitment=
=20
than these predicates allow.  or maybe not.  But it does get the wrong sort=
=20
of thing: it is not the "any old" that is really intended here, but a very=
=20
special (and probably non-existent) one.

<3. Something equivalent to {tu'odu'u ce'u broda}>

Does anyone really hold this?  {lo'e broda} is in some sense a broda (even =
if=20
imaginary), so rarely a property, unless brodas are.

<lo'e/le'e of types (1) and (3) are=20
redundant, being mere abbreviations of other expressions>

An odd objection from a person who is constatnly looking for other ways to=
=20
say the same thing as existing expressions and apparently often intends for=
=20
them to be used. OTOH , the claim is only true of 1 really and an=20
abbreviation might well be useful for resolving some ambiguities efficientl=
y=20
(Swedes eat more yogurt than Danes).

<OTOH, Lojban's lo v. loi (and le v. lei) distinction fails to capture
the distinction (which applies to intrinsically bounded individuals,
like people, but not to intrinsic masses, like water) between (i) a
group of things taken as a whole, and (ii) a prototype-theoretic
category, which is an individual such that members of the category
are versions of that individual. From what I can gather, Loglan "lo"
was formerly (ii) (so "lo remna/prenu/nanmu" =3D "Man" (not "man")),
while nowadays, like Lojban, it is (i) (so "lo remna/prenu/nanmu" =3D=20
"mankind"). [In former years I called (ii) a "myopic singularizer".]
The contrast is evidence in examples like:

(i)=A0 Mankind has (exactly) two eyes. [false]
(ii) Man has (exactly) two eyes. [true]
Lojban {re da kanla lo remna} means (i).>

Ignotum per ignotius: the Mankind-Man distinction (any one of the several=20
that might be meant) is more obscure than {lo - loi}  as is "groups taken a=
s=20
a whole"  (isn't this {lo'i}?) v. "prototype-theoretic category"  (whadafu?=
).=20
 The examples also fail to match the readings, as far as the most likely=20
interps go.

<So how do we express 'categorial individuals', as in (ii)? -- Using
{lo'e}, I propose: {re da kanla lo'e remna}.>

Well, at least the Lojban is true, but I don't yet see what a categorial=20
individual is -- unless it means a typical one or something like it, which =
we=20
already knew.

<And what does {le'e} mean? Well, if there is a specific group of one or
more individuals, {le} refers to each member of the group individually,=20
{lei} refers to them collectively, somewhat as if you ignore the boundaries=
=20
between the individuals, while {le'e} refers to the one individual you get=
=20
if you abstract away from the differences that individuate the different=20
individuals -- in other words, it is the archetype of the group.>=20=20

aHAH!  This is getting a bit better but probably still won't really work,=20
since a {le} group (and even a {lo}) may not have enough such properties to=
=20
make an individual -- the resemblances may only be familial (and with {le}=
=20
not even that).  "Stand just there" and all.  So the abstraction process ha=
s=20
to be at least more complex than this pattern suggests -- closer to "the=20
average X," though that will be inadequate in other ways.

xod:
<However, I am not sure that I like the
difference between lo'e and le'e being much different than the difference
between lo and le (or lo'i, le'i).

lo'e remna =3D categorial individual of lo remna
le'e remna =3D categorial individual of le remna

And let the difference reflect whatever difference there is between lo
remna and le remna. Actual Lojban usage seems to have contracted le and
lo into le. If you want to re-assert the difference, le/lo is where you
should apply your energy.>

While agreeing with the final point, I think that the {le'e lo'e} distincti=
on=20
& proposes does match that of {le lo} -- it is just that it is inadequate a=
nd=20
so inaccurate for both.

&:
<I do want to wage war against excessive use of {le}. Doubtless it'll be
futile, but still it might be worthwhile. The problem is that people are
influenced by phonology when choosing 'default' forms, and hence 'le' and
'lo' feel more default than lei/loi/le'e/lo'e. Yet for singleton categories=
,
'le' and 'lo' are actually the least appropriate, involving redundant
quantification, and even lei/loi wrongly imply the relevance of a
distributive/collective distinction. So for singleton categories, le'e/lo'e
should be the default. At any rate, I myself will now be ditching {tu'odu'u=
}=20
and
start using {lo'e du'u} instead.>

An arguable point, with a lot of merit on &'s side, but the singular as=20
universal is deeply embedded in the history of logic (which had, admittedly=
,=20
fewer resources).  The lV'e version implies a fictive element which is=20
presumably not only irrelevant but flat wrong.  One does regret JCB's=20
rejection of the descriptors of ordinary logic in favor of his own oddities=
,=20
especially when he did such an abominable -- not to say contradictory -- jo=
b=20
of defining them (to which Lojban has added new fillips).=20=20

<ex rob
> Thank you for ditching {tu'odu'u} - using tu'o as an article seems to be
> just a way to deliberately communicate nothing.

Exactly! It was a way of avoiding communicating unnecessary information and
having to decide which unnecessary information to communicate. But I now=20
realize
that lo'e will do this job.>

I don't see it as a general principle: {lo'e} carries its own freight.  the=
=20
virtue of {tu'o} is exactly that it is freightless.

<{ro} too requires great caution -- you have to check scopes are correct, &=
=20
are
you sure you really mean "every"... Certainly if you have no specifics in m=
ind
then a LE-series one is wrong. But ro v. lo v. loi v. lo'e still has to be
decided. To me, lo'e is by far the safest option.>

Maybe as a maxim of prudence, but it is always better to figure out what yo=
u=20
really mean and say that, rather than just reduce your chances of saying=20
something glaringly false or stupid.

cowan:
<(iii) Man(kind) speaks six thousand languages. (true)
(iv) Man speaks six thousand languages. (false)
(v) A man speaks six thousand languages. (false)>

What does iv mean?  It is not (as it normally would be) iii and can hardly =
be=20
v.

xod:
<For the trivial
case of a set containing only one member, doesn't le'e reduce to le [pa]?
What's the archetype of a singleton; what is the mean of a single event?>

Not necessarily, for the archetype may still be different from the actual=20
realization (or, more accurately, the other way round) -- the realization h=
as=20
particular features that are not archetypal.  Of course, this assumes that=
=20
lV'e is an archetype rather than just a typical, etc.  Which goes back to t=
he=20
initial question.

pier:
<{reda kanla lo'e remna} sounds not quite right - it should be {lo'e remna =
cu=20
se kanla reda}. >

What is the quantifier on {lo'e} that makes this exchange different?=20=20










=20

           
--part1_da.e33ee0d.290c7501_boundary 
Content-Type: text/html; charset="ISO-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

<HTML><FONT FACE=3Darial,helvetica><BODY BGCOLOR=3D"#ffffff"><FONT  SIZE=3D=
2>In a message dated 10/26/2001 7:23:17 AM Central Daylight Time, a.rosta@n=
tlworld.com writes:
<BR>
<BR>
<BR><BLOCKQUOTE TYPE=3DCITE style=3D"BORDER-LEFT: #0000ff 2px solid; MARGIN=
-LEFT: 5px; MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px; PADDING-LEFT: 5px">There is nary a shred of =
consensus about what {lo'e} and {le'e} mean.
<BR>The main proposed interpretations that have some currency are:
<BR>
<BR>1. Something similar to {lo fadni be X} or {le fadni be X}.
<BR></BLOCKQUOTE></FONT><FONT  COLOR=3D"#000000" SIZE=3D3 FAMILY=3D"SANSSER=
IF" FACE=3D"Arial" LANG=3D"0">
<BR>
<BR>Surely, {le fadni be fi X}, since it clearly has some relation to a cla=
ss of things. &nbsp;It may also be restricted in what properties are consid=
ered, but that is secondary.
<BR>
<BR>&lt;2. The fuzzily-defined xorxesian usage seen in {nitcu lo'e tanxe},
<BR>{djica lo'e pendo}, {kalte lo'e mirli}.&gt;
<BR>
<BR>But isn't this just one of those rare errors on xorxes part, meaning {t=
u'a lo broda} but trying to preserve English (surface) structure? &nbsp;May=
be we cannot generalize on &nbsp;{lo'e} but it still seems carry more exist=
ential commitment than these predicates allow. &nbsp;or maybe not. &nbsp;Bu=
t it does get the wrong sort of thing: it is not the "any old" that is real=
ly intended here, but a very special (and probably non-existent) one.
<BR>
<BR>&lt;3. Something equivalent to {tu'odu'u ce'u broda}&gt;
<BR>
<BR>Does anyone really hold this? &nbsp;{lo'e broda} is in some sense a bro=
da (even if imaginary), so rarely a property, unless brodas are.
<BR>
<BR>&lt;lo'e/le'e of types (1) and (3) are=20
<BR>redundant, being mere abbreviations of other expressions&gt;
<BR>
<BR>An odd objection from a person who is constatnly looking for other ways=
 to say the same thing as existing expressions and apparently often intends=
 for them to be used. OTOH , the claim is only true of 1 really and an abbr=
eviation might well be useful for resolving some ambiguities efficiently (S=
wedes eat more yogurt than Danes).
<BR>
<BR>&lt;OTOH, Lojban's lo v. loi (and le v. lei) distinction fails to captu=
re
<BR>the distinction (which applies to intrinsically bounded individuals,
<BR>like people, but not to intrinsic masses, like water) between (i) a
<BR>group of things taken as a whole, and (ii) a prototype-theoretic
<BR>category, which is an individual such that members of the category
<BR>are versions of that individual. From what I can gather, Loglan "lo"
<BR>was formerly (ii) (so "lo remna/prenu/nanmu" =3D "Man" (not "man")),
<BR>while nowadays, like Lojban, it is (i) (so "lo remna/prenu/nanmu" =3D=20
<BR>"mankind"). [In former years I called (ii) a "myopic singularizer".]
<BR>The contrast is evidence in examples like:
<BR>
<BR>(i)=A0 Mankind has (exactly) two eyes. [false]
<BR>(ii) Man has (exactly) two eyes. [true]
<BR>Lojban {re da kanla lo remna} means (i).&gt;
<BR>
<BR>Ignotum per ignotius: the Mankind-Man distinction (any one of the sever=
al that might be meant) is more obscure than {lo - loi} &nbsp;as is "groups=
 taken as a whole" &nbsp;(isn't this {lo'i}?) v. "prototype-theoretic categ=
ory" &nbsp;(whadafu?). &nbsp;The examples also fail to match the readings, =
as far as the most likely interps go.
<BR>
<BR>&lt;So how do we express 'categorial individuals', as in (ii)? -- Using
<BR>{lo'e}, I propose: {re da kanla lo'e remna}.&gt;
<BR>
<BR>Well, at least the Lojban is true, but I don't yet see what a categoria=
l individual is -- unless it means a typical one or something like it, whic=
h we already knew.
<BR>
<BR>&lt;And what does {le'e} mean? Well, if there is a specific group of on=
e or
<BR>more individuals, {le} refers to each member of the group individually,=
=20
<BR>{lei} refers to them collectively, somewhat as if you ignore the bounda=
ries=20
<BR>between the individuals, while {le'e} refers to the one individual you =
get=20
<BR>if you abstract away from the differences that individuate the differen=
t=20
<BR>individuals -- in other words, it is the archetype of the group.&gt; &n=
bsp;
<BR>
<BR>aHAH! &nbsp;This is getting a bit better but probably still won't reall=
y work, since a {le} group (and even a {lo}) may not have enough such prope=
rties to make an individual -- the resemblances may only be familial (and w=
ith {le} not even that). &nbsp;"Stand just there" and all. &nbsp;So the abs=
traction process has to be at least more complex than this pattern suggests=
 -- closer to "the average X," though that will be inadequate in other ways=
.
<BR>
<BR>xod:
<BR>&lt;However, I am not sure that I like the
<BR>difference between lo'e and le'e being much different than the differen=
ce
<BR>between lo and le (or lo'i, le'i).
<BR>
<BR>lo'e remna =3D categorial individual of lo remna
<BR>le'e remna =3D categorial individual of le remna
<BR>
<BR>And let the difference reflect whatever difference there is between lo
<BR>remna and le remna. Actual Lojban usage seems to have contracted le and
<BR>lo into le. If you want to re-assert the difference, le/lo is where you
<BR>should apply your energy.&gt;
<BR>
<BR>While agreeing with the final point, I think that the {le'e lo'e} disti=
nction &amp; proposes does match that of {le lo} -- it is just that it is i=
nadequate and so inaccurate for both.
<BR>
<BR>&amp;:
<BR>&lt;I do want to wage war against excessive use of {le}. Doubtless it'l=
l be
<BR>futile, but still it might be worthwhile. The problem is that people ar=
e
<BR>influenced by phonology when choosing 'default' forms, and hence 'le' a=
nd
<BR>'lo' feel more default than lei/loi/le'e/lo'e. Yet for singleton catego=
ries,
<BR>'le' and 'lo' are actually the least appropriate, involving redundant
<BR>quantification, and even lei/loi wrongly imply the relevance of a
<BR>distributive/collective distinction. So for singleton categories, le'e/=
lo'e
<BR>should be the default. At any rate, I myself will now be ditching {tu'o=
du'u} and
<BR>start using {lo'e du'u} instead.&gt;
<BR>
<BR>An arguable point, with a lot of merit on &amp;'s side, but the singula=
r as universal is deeply embedded in the history of logic (which had, admit=
tedly, fewer resources). &nbsp;The lV'e version implies a fictive element w=
hich is presumably not only irrelevant but flat wrong. &nbsp;One does regre=
t JCB's rejection of the descriptors of ordinary logic in favor of his own =
oddities, especially when he did such an abominable -- not to say contradic=
tory -- job of defining them (to which Lojban has added new fillips). &nbsp=
;
<BR>
<BR>&lt;ex rob
<BR>&gt; Thank you for ditching {tu'odu'u} - using tu'o as an article seems=
 to be
<BR>&gt; just a way to deliberately communicate nothing.
<BR>
<BR>Exactly! It was a way of avoiding communicating unnecessary information=
 and
<BR>having to decide which unnecessary information to communicate. But I no=
w realize
<BR>that lo'e will do this job.&gt;
<BR>
<BR>I don't see it as a general principle: {lo'e} carries its own freight. =
&nbsp;the virtue of {tu'o} is exactly that it is freightless.
<BR>
<BR>&lt;{ro} too requires great caution -- you have to check scopes are cor=
rect, &amp; are
<BR>you sure you really mean "every"... Certainly if you have no specifics =
in mind
<BR>then a LE-series one is wrong. But ro v. lo v. loi v. lo'e still has to=
 be
<BR>decided. To me, lo'e is by far the safest option.&gt;
<BR>
<BR>Maybe as a maxim of prudence, but it is always better to figure out wha=
t you really mean and say that, rather than just reduce your chances of say=
ing something glaringly false or stupid.
<BR>
<BR>cowan:
<BR>&lt;(iii) Man(kind) speaks six thousand languages. (true)
<BR>(iv) Man speaks six thousand languages. (false)
<BR>(v) A man speaks six thousand languages. (false)&gt;
<BR>
<BR>What does iv mean? &nbsp;It is not (as it normally would be) iii and ca=
n hardly be v.
<BR>
<BR>xod:
<BR>&lt;For the trivial
<BR>case of a set containing only one member, doesn't le'e reduce to le [pa=
]?
<BR>What's the archetype of a singleton; what is the mean of a single event=
?&gt;
<BR>
<BR>Not necessarily, for the archetype may still be different from the actu=
al realization (or, more accurately, the other way round) -- the realizatio=
n has particular features that are not archetypal. &nbsp;Of course, this as=
sumes that lV'e is an archetype rather than just a typical, etc. &nbsp;Whic=
h goes back to the initial question.
<BR>
<BR>pier:
<BR>&lt;{reda kanla lo'e remna} sounds not quite right - it should be {lo'e=
 remna cu=20
<BR>se kanla reda}. &gt;
<BR>
<BR>What is the quantifier on {lo'e} that makes this exchange different? &n=
bsp;
<BR>
<BR>
<BR>
<BR>
<BR>
<BR>
<BR>
<BR>
<BR>
<BR>
<BR>=20
<BR></FONT></HTML>
           
--part1_da.e33ee0d.290c7501_boundary--