From pycyn@aol.com Mon Oct 29 13:20:22 2001
Return-Path: <Pycyn@aol.com>
X-Sender: Pycyn@aol.com
X-Apparently-To: lojban@yahoogroups.com
Received: (EGP: mail-8_0_0_1); 29 Oct 2001 21:20:22 -0000
Received: (qmail 72347 invoked from network); 29 Oct 2001 21:20:22 -0000
Received: from unknown (10.1.10.26)
  by l10.egroups.com with QMQP; 29 Oct 2001 21:20:22 -0000
Received: from unknown (HELO imo-m04.mx.aol.com) (64.12.136.7)
  by mta1 with SMTP; 29 Oct 2001 21:20:22 -0000
Received: from Pycyn@aol.com
	by imo-m04.mx.aol.com (mail_out_v31_r1.8.) id r.2d.1339158a (4552)
	 for <lojban@yahoogroups.com>; Mon, 29 Oct 2001 16:20:00 -0500 (EST)
Message-ID: <2d.1339158a.290f21ff@aol.com>
Date: Mon, 29 Oct 2001 16:19:59 EST
Subject: Re: [lojban] observatives & a construal of lo'e & le'e
To: lojban@yahoogroups.com
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="part1_2d.1339158a.290f21ff_boundary"
X-Mailer: AOL 6.0 for Windows US sub 10535
From: pycyn@aol.com
X-Yahoo-Profile: kaliputra
X-Yahoo-Message-Num: 11752

           
--part1_2d.1339158a.290f21ff_boundary 
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

In a message dated 10/29/2001 8:23:57 AM Central Standard Time,=20
arosta@uclan.ac.uk writes:


> in Lojban a sequence
> of one or more sumti can count as a sentence.
>=20

Technically not; every sentence must contain a bridi tail. But such a strin=
g=20
could be a fragment.

<I'm talking about current Loglan, or at least my desultory reading of it.>

Even then the sumti-observative seems to ahve been rejected as too unclear=
=20
(i.e., how to tell it from a fragment or the beginning of a longer -- thoug=
h=20
slowly emitted -- sentence ("...derry.")

<So anyway, it seems the rule for Lojban is that a zo'e x1 cannot be
elided.>

No, observatives are possible (actual, even).  It just is that the role of=
=20
such elided {zo'e} is restricted to objects at the center of one's=20
observation.

<What le/lo have to do with observatives is that the sentence
{lo gerku} could mean "Lo! A dog", while {le gerku} could mean
"Lo! The dog".>

Well, it is not a sentence, and I suspect a bit of subconscious punning to=
=20
get to this reading (it was surely present when the idea was first presente=
d=20
-- so far as I know -- in '76 or so).  Oddly, the object of observation is=
=20
always {le} by definition, so the pun fails.

<No. Jorge's usage was intended to be canonical/defining, replacing the
meaning that has to do with typicality.>

Yes, that mistake, too; even xorxes can't set up a new canon for a fixed te=
rm.

<, the whole=20
#point of {tu'a} is to prevent the quantifier on -- or one derived from --=
=20
the=20
#sumti from rising to the upper level, so of course the quantifier goes on=
=20
the=20
#{le nu ... co'e} that {tu'a} indicates.=A0 Where has this been doubted?=A0=
=20

I don't remember this ever having been the whole or even the partial
point of tu'a. Tu'a marks so-called sumti-raising, and I don't recall the=20
quantification either having been settled or much discussed. My memory
may be unreliable, though.>

Well, I claim that MY memory is non-veridical, so I won't dispute on what h=
as=20
or has not been said.  Somethings are so obvious as not to need mentioning=
=20
even here (until the mention is required, of course).  The only logically=20
interesting feature of subject raising (and, indeed, almost the only=20
linguistically interesting one, aside from cooccurrence restrictions) is th=
at=20
it gives a surface structure (in English and most languages -- but NOT in=20
Lojban) that appears to allow quantifications that are in fact illegitimate=
=20
and the point of reconstructing the invisible clause is to explain why the=
=20
quantification is illegitimate.=20=20

<It's a good exception, but you can't escape it being an exception, given
the rule that sumti quantified in situ are interpreted as being quantified
in the prenex of the localmost syntactic bridi.>

I can and do.  First, as you know, I do not believe there is a rule
 of the superficial and erratic kind that you seem to be appealing to here,=
=20
from which a raised subject is an exception.  Secondly, in the real rule of=
=20
which yours is a parody (and, but for the erratic element, in yours too), t=
he=20
sumti in {tu'a sumti} does not occur in the bridi in which {tu'a sumti}=20
occurs.  Thirdly, that sumti is bound in the bridi in which it does occur.

<Come on, you chide others for saying "Lojban can't say X". Just make the
appropriate lujvo.>
I didn't say it couldn't be done; I just said that we have lost a natural w=
ay=20
of doing it somewhere along the line.  As for making a lujvo, people dislik=
e=20
mine as much as my translations and a lujvo does not seem the appropriate w=
ay=20
to go here anyhow.

<#Well, it will fail -- at least to be useful -- if it cannot be given some=
=20
#meaningful content.=A0 Historically, it has been used as a magic wand to c=
over=20
#cases that could not be made to fit otherwise=A0=20

you're talking about {lo'e}, I take it. Or prototype theory?>

Prototype theory.(this version of {lo'e} a fortiori).

<The main answer to all of this is that lo'e and its implementation of=20
prototype
theory's categorial individual (=3D 'prototype') makes available an alterna=
tive=20
ontology. Users who find that ontology useful can use it; those who don't
needn't. All pretty Lojbanic.

To answer your "Is it a blueprint or a member of the class or a way of=20
talking=20
about the class fuzzily", those are indeed answers given by weak forms of
prototype theory, but the strong form is best understood as saying that
either there are no categories, only individuals, or that everything is a
category. Either way, the traditional member-of relation is replaced by the
version-of relation.>

Still lacking is any explanation of what this might conceivably mean that i=
s=20
different from either bad statistics or worse Platonism.  I suppose bad=20
Platonism is a possible ontoology, but it doesn't help here, because, as=20
noted, the prototype has very few properties in common with the versions an=
d=20
so fails to do its job.  Alternate ontologies are welcome, but tey ought no=
t=20
be brought in to solve a problem they in fact make worse.

<I think it isn't what I would think of as Platonism. For example I can see
touch and smell the pc prototype, so prototypes aren't inherently abstract
(-- I understand Platonic categories to be inherently abstract).>

Whoa!  You can (or could in certain situations) see, touch and smell ME, bu=
t=20
I am not a me prototype in any interesting sense.  I suppose, we are back n=
ow=20
to st-worms and  temporal (or maybe even some kinds of spatial) cross=20
sections.  That works for an individual, but not for a natural kind (let=20
alone a {le} group). This is not coming across as an ontology now, so much =
as=20
a verbal formula that covers several ontologies that inherently have nothin=
g=20
to do with one another.  That judgment may turn out to be wrong (see=20
Lesniewski's mereology), but it sure needs a lot of work to make it plausib=
le.

<#-- in which case the question of connection -- which may not be=20
#important in the present sense -- remains unsolved,=20

I don't know what that question is.>

What is the relation between the prototype and the version by virtue of whi=
ch=20
the version is a version of the prototype, rather than something else.

<#and of course means that=20
#the individual has properties that none of its versions has and=20
conversely).=A0=20

I think this is held (by prototype theorists) to not be the case. I would=20
favour
going along with that view in the interpretation of {lo'e broda}, and takin=
g
{lo'e/tu'o du'u ce'u broda} to be the Platonic essence.>

Yes, but HOW would they do it?  I take {lo'e [or whatever] du'u ce'u broda}=
=20
to be a property, and thus not the right category to be an Ideal or a=20
prototype or...

<I don't want to debate the ontology itself. I just want to argue that it i=
s=20
important
enough that Lojban should have a way of expressing it, and furthermore that
it's useful if it is expressed by a gadri..>

I am sure we can come of with an expression meaning "is a/the prototype of"=
=20
to express this ontology, I'm trying to find out just how this helps explai=
n=20
a gadri.  Byron on Coleridge: "explaining metaphysics to the nation, how I=
=20
wish he'd explain his explanation." I have a pretty clear idea what {lo'e=20
cinfo} means, I have rather less of what a prototypical category of lion is=
.

<Apparently KOhA gets quantified, not just LE, so (without my knowing the
formal grammar) it seems plausible that the grammar allow "li" and "me'o"
to be quantified.>
Oh, it probably does, but I am not sure that a default was specified=20
(presumably {pa}, but I wouldn't be surprised at anything).

<However, my ulterior question is: What should one do when the grammar
requires a gadri but, as with "li" and "me'o", the sumti attaches always to
unique objects? Answers so far are "tu'o" and "lo'e".>

I agree, but, on the other hand, since it won't in the end make a differenc=
e,=20
take whatever you like (well, {lo'i} is clearly a mistake as is any number=
=20
but 1).  I like {tu'o} for its in-your-face nose-thumbing and dislike {lo'e=
}=20
because it is obscure and possibbly wrong.

<Those examples, on certain construals, take us into an imaginary realm
where there is only one customer and only one postman, and situations
in other realms where there are many customers and many postmen are
versions of the imaginary one. To me this is not an unnatural mode of
thought, and it is desirable that Lojban be able to express it relatively
effortlessly.>


Well, I don't like it to be too easy to move into imaginary realms -- I=20
certainly want a least one major flag up when I move.  It does seem to me=20
that Lojban is more than adequately equpped -- though not yet very well=20
trained -- for making such moves easily and visibly.  I am less sure about=
=20
versions of an imaginary postman, however.








=20













           
--part1_2d.1339158a.290f21ff_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 10/29/2001 8:23:57 AM Central Standard Time, arosta@uc=
lan.ac.uk writes:
<BR>
<BR>
<BR><BLOCKQUOTE TYPE=3DCITE style=3D"BORDER-LEFT: #0000ff 2px solid; MARGIN=
-LEFT: 5px; MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px; PADDING-LEFT: 5px">in Lojban a sequence
<BR>of one or more sumti can count as a sentence.
<BR></BLOCKQUOTE></FONT><FONT  COLOR=3D"#000000" SIZE=3D3 FAMILY=3D"SANSSER=
IF" FACE=3D"Arial" LANG=3D"0">
<BR>
<BR>Technically not; every sentence must contain a bridi tail. But such a s=
tring could be a fragment.
<BR>
<BR>&lt;I'm talking about current Loglan, or at least my desultory reading =
of it.&gt;
<BR>
<BR>Even then the sumti-observative seems to ahve been rejected as too uncl=
ear (i.e., how to tell it from a fragment or the beginning of a longer -- t=
hough slowly emitted -- sentence ("...derry.")
<BR>
<BR>&lt;So anyway, it seems the rule for Lojban is that a zo'e x1 cannot be
<BR>elided.&gt;
<BR>
<BR>No, observatives are possible (actual, even). &nbsp;It just is that the=
 role of such elided {zo'e} is restricted to objects at the center of one's=
 observation.
<BR>
<BR>&lt;What le/lo have to do with observatives is that the sentence
<BR>{lo gerku} could mean "Lo! A dog", while {le gerku} could mean
<BR>"Lo! The dog".&gt;
<BR>
<BR>Well, it is not a sentence, and I suspect a bit of subconscious punning=
 to get to this reading (it was surely present when the idea was first pres=
ented -- so far as I know -- in '76 or so). &nbsp;Oddly, the object of obse=
rvation is always {le} by definition, so the pun fails.
<BR>
<BR>&lt;No. Jorge's usage was intended to be canonical/defining, replacing =
the
<BR>meaning that has to do with typicality.&gt;
<BR>
<BR>Yes, that mistake, too; even xorxes can't set up a new canon for a fixe=
d term.
<BR>
<BR>&lt;, the whole=20
<BR>#point of {tu'a} is to prevent the quantifier on -- or one derived from=
 -- the=20
<BR>#sumti from rising to the upper level, so of course the quantifier goes=
 on the=20
<BR>#{le nu ... co'e} that {tu'a} indicates.=A0 Where has this been doubted=
?=A0=20
<BR>
<BR>I don't remember this ever having been the whole or even the partial
<BR>point of tu'a. Tu'a marks so-called sumti-raising, and I don't recall t=
he=20
<BR>quantification either having been settled or much discussed. My memory
<BR>may be unreliable, though.&gt;
<BR>
<BR>Well, I claim that MY memory is non-veridical, so I won't dispute on wh=
at has or has not been said. &nbsp;Somethings are so obvious as not to need=
 mentioning even here (until the mention is required, of course). &nbsp;The=
 only logically interesting feature of subject raising (and, indeed, almost=
 the only linguistically interesting one, aside from cooccurrence restricti=
ons) is that it gives a surface structure (in English and most languages --=
 but NOT in Lojban) that appears to allow quantifications that are in fact =
illegitimate and the point of reconstructing the invisible clause is to exp=
lain why the quantification is illegitimate. &nbsp;
<BR>
<BR>&lt;It's a good exception, but you can't escape it being an exception, =
given
<BR>the rule that sumti quantified in situ are interpreted as being quantif=
ied
<BR>in the prenex of the localmost syntactic bridi.&gt;
<BR>
<BR>I can and do. &nbsp;First, as you know, I do not believe there is a rul=
e
<BR> of the superficial and erratic kind that you seem to be appealing to h=
ere, from which a raised subject is an exception. &nbsp;Secondly, in the re=
al rule of which yours is a parody (and, but for the erratic element, in yo=
urs too), the sumti in {tu'a sumti} does not occur in the bridi in which {t=
u'a sumti} occurs. &nbsp;Thirdly, that sumti is bound in the bridi in which=
 it does occur.
<BR>
<BR>&lt;Come on, you chide others for saying "Lojban can't say X". Just mak=
e the
<BR>appropriate lujvo.&gt;
<BR>I didn't say it couldn't be done; I just said that we have lost a natur=
al way of doing it somewhere along the line. &nbsp;As for making a lujvo, p=
eople dislike mine as much as my translations and a lujvo does not seem the=
 appropriate way to go here anyhow.
<BR>
<BR>&lt;#Well, it will fail -- at least to be useful -- if it cannot be giv=
en some=20
<BR>#meaningful content.=A0 Historically, it has been used as a magic wand =
to cover=20
<BR>#cases that could not be made to fit otherwise=A0=20
<BR>
<BR>you're talking about {lo'e}, I take it. Or prototype theory?&gt;
<BR>
<BR>Prototype theory.(this version of {lo'e} a fortiori).
<BR>
<BR>&lt;The main answer to all of this is that lo'e and its implementation =
of prototype
<BR>theory's categorial individual (=3D 'prototype') makes available an alt=
ernative=20
<BR>ontology. Users who find that ontology useful can use it; those who don=
't
<BR>needn't. All pretty Lojbanic.
<BR>
<BR>To answer your "Is it a blueprint or a member of the class or a way of =
talking=20
<BR>about the class fuzzily", those are indeed answers given by weak forms =
of
<BR>prototype theory, but the strong form is best understood as saying that
<BR>either there are no categories, only individuals, or that everything is=
 a
<BR>category. Either way, the traditional member-of relation is replaced by=
 the
<BR>version-of relation.&gt;
<BR>
<BR>Still lacking is any explanation of what this might conceivably mean th=
at is different from either bad statistics or worse Platonism. &nbsp;I supp=
ose bad Platonism is a possible ontoology, but it doesn't help here, becaus=
e, as noted, the prototype has very few properties in common with the versi=
ons and so fails to do its job. &nbsp;Alternate ontologies are welcome, but=
 tey ought not be brought in to solve a problem they in fact make worse.
<BR>
<BR>&lt;I think it isn't what I would think of as Platonism. For example I =
can see
<BR>touch and smell the pc prototype, so prototypes aren't inherently abstr=
act
<BR>(-- I understand Platonic categories to be inherently abstract).&gt;
<BR>
<BR>Whoa! &nbsp;You can (or could in certain situations) see, touch and sme=
ll ME, but I am not a me prototype in any interesting sense. &nbsp;I suppos=
e, we are back now to st-worms and &nbsp;temporal (or maybe even some kinds=
 of spatial) cross sections. &nbsp;That works for an individual, but not fo=
r a natural kind (let alone a {le} group). This is not coming across as an =
ontology now, so much as a verbal formula that covers several ontologies th=
at inherently have nothing to do with one another. &nbsp;That judgment may =
turn out to be wrong (see Lesniewski's mereology), but it sure needs a lot =
of work to make it plausible.
<BR>
<BR>&lt;#-- in which case the question of connection -- which may not be=20
<BR>#important in the present sense -- remains unsolved,=20
<BR>
<BR>I don't know what that question is.&gt;
<BR>
<BR>What is the relation between the prototype and the version by virtue of=
 which the version is a version of the prototype, rather than something els=
e.
<BR>
<BR>&lt;#and of course means that=20
<BR>#the individual has properties that none of its versions has and conver=
sely).=A0=20
<BR>
<BR>I think this is held (by prototype theorists) to not be the case. I wou=
ld favour
<BR>going along with that view in the interpretation of {lo'e broda}, and t=
aking
<BR>{lo'e/tu'o du'u ce'u broda} to be the Platonic essence.&gt;
<BR>
<BR>Yes, but HOW would they do it? &nbsp;I take {lo'e [or whatever] du'u ce=
'u broda} to be a property, and thus not the right category to be an Ideal =
or a prototype or...
<BR>
<BR>&lt;I don't want to debate the ontology itself. I just want to argue th=
at it is important
<BR>enough that Lojban should have a way of expressing it, and furthermore =
that
<BR>it's useful if it is expressed by a gadri..&gt;
<BR>
<BR>I am sure we can come of with an expression meaning "is a/the prototype=
 of" to express this ontology, I'm trying to find out just how this helps e=
xplain a gadri. &nbsp;Byron on Coleridge: "explaining metaphysics to the na=
tion, how I wish he'd explain his explanation." I have a pretty clear idea =
what {lo'e cinfo} means, I have rather less of what a prototypical category=
 of lion is.
<BR>
<BR>&lt;Apparently KOhA gets quantified, not just LE, so (without my knowin=
g the
<BR>formal grammar) it seems plausible that the grammar allow "li" and "me'=
o"
<BR>to be quantified.&gt;
<BR>Oh, it probably does, but I am not sure that a default was specified (p=
resumably {pa}, but I wouldn't be surprised at anything).
<BR>
<BR>&lt;However, my ulterior question is: What should one do when the gramm=
ar
<BR>requires a gadri but, as with "li" and "me'o", the sumti attaches alway=
s to
<BR>unique objects? Answers so far are "tu'o" and "lo'e".&gt;
<BR>
<BR>I agree, but, on the other hand, since it won't in the end make a diffe=
rence, take whatever you like (well, {lo'i} is clearly a mistake as is any =
number but 1). &nbsp;I like {tu'o} for its in-your-face nose-thumbing and d=
islike {lo'e} because it is obscure and possibbly wrong.
<BR>
<BR>&lt;Those examples, on certain construals, take us into an imaginary re=
alm
<BR>where there is only one customer and only one postman, and situations
<BR>in other realms where there are many customers and many postmen are
<BR>versions of the imaginary one. To me this is not an unnatural mode of
<BR>thought, and it is desirable that Lojban be able to express it relative=
ly
<BR>effortlessly.&gt;
<BR>
<BR>
<BR>Well, I don't like it to be too easy to move into imaginary realms -- I=
 certainly want a least one major flag up when I move. &nbsp;It does seem t=
o me that Lojban is more than adequately equpped -- though not yet very wel=
l trained -- for making such moves easily and visibly. &nbsp;I am less sure=
 about versions of an imaginary postman, however.
<BR>
<BR>
<BR>
<BR>
<BR>
<BR>
<BR>
<BR>
<BR>=20
<BR>
<BR>
<BR>
<BR>
<BR>
<BR>
<BR>
<BR>
<BR>
<BR>
<BR>
<BR>
<BR></FONT></HTML>
           
--part1_2d.1339158a.290f21ff_boundary--