From arosta@uclan.ac.uk Tue Oct 30 12:13:51 2001 Return-Path: X-Sender: arosta@uclan.ac.uk X-Apparently-To: lojban@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-8_0_0_1); 30 Oct 2001 20:13:50 -0000 Received: (qmail 12033 invoked from network); 30 Oct 2001 20:13:48 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.27) by 10.1.1.224 with QMQP; 30 Oct 2001 20:13:48 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO com1.uclan.ac.uk) (193.61.255.3) by mta2 with SMTP; 30 Oct 2001 20:13:43 -0000 Received: from gwise-gw1.uclan.ac.uk by com1.uclan.ac.uk with SMTP (Mailer); Tue, 30 Oct 2001 19:50:20 +0000 Received: from DI1-Message_Server by gwise-gw1.uclan.ac.uk with Novell_GroupWise; Tue, 30 Oct 2001 20:24:50 +0000 Message-Id: X-Mailer: Novell GroupWise 5.5.2 Date: Tue, 30 Oct 2001 20:24:35 +0000 To: lojban Subject: RE: [lojban] a construal of lo'e & le'e Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Disposition: inline From: And Rosta X-Yahoo-Profile: andjamin X-Yahoo-Message-Num: 11785 >>> "Bob LeChevalier (lojbab)" 10/29/01 06:32pm >>> #At 04:22 PM 10/29/01 +0000, And Rosta wrote: #>Lojbab: #>#The fact that the English definition is worded a particular way does not #>#signify, except that English is constrained to make such #>#distinctions. remna is "a portion of human" which bears the appropriate #>#minimal set of properties associated with its various places "ka remna" #>#(without ce'u, or with all places ce'u, I hope). But the English "is a #>#portion of water" makes more sense than "is a water", just as "English "= is #>#a human" makes more sense than "is a portion of human". #> #>This is not true, because: #> #>(a) A fairly recent debate about "lu pa re ci li'u cu valsi" agreed (iirc= )=20 #>that it wasn't # #I don't know why not. A valid question is whether it is pa valsi or ci=20 #valsi. In few contexts would one recognize it as pa valci. Maybe someone with sufficient time to spare can check the list archives, searching under keyword "wordage". #>(b) Absolutely all usage is against it #> #>And it shouldn't be true, because (c) we then have no surefire way of #>counting countables. # #I don't know why not. As long as it is clear that you are dealing with=20 #countables in the given context (use selci to make that clear if it isn't)= =20 #and what the selci is for the particular concept. Obviously, with remna,= =20 #the selci is something approximating a whole person (we don't call an=20 #amputee less-than a person), though in some contexts, a part of a single=20 #person might be counted. Use selci how? #>Given a-c, either remna doesn't mean "a portion of human", or its definit= ion #>specifies what counts as one portion. # #There are no definitions of what constitutes a selci of any kind. Does the definition of remna include a definition of what counts as one remna? If not, how do we assess whether {re da cu remna} is true? #>#Example, also invoking observatives. If I run across a body part, I mig= ht #>#indeed use the observative "remna", even though all I have seen is a par= t #>#of a human. #> #>And, more crucially, might you also say "mi viska pa remna"? # #Given the right context, yes. Well at least you're consistent with yourself. #>And if so, #>could you also say "mi viska re remna", when you see just the one severed #>leg, or when you see just one person. # #If I see only one person, I should say "pa". If context has be=20 #interpreting what I see as two persons, I should say "re". But I thought you were saying that "remna" doesn't mean "person". If you say in English "X is a person" you are saying that X has the properties tha= t individuate it as a single person. So quite clearly in English a severed le= g is not two people. And nor is a whole person two people. And for Lojban? #>#> > > (i) Mankind has (exactly) two eyes. [false] #>#> > > (ii) Man has (exactly) two eyes. [true] #>#> > #>#> > Hmm, in (ii) is the subject "man" or "Man"? #>#> #>#>"Man". "man" in English can't mean much besides output of what #>#>Jackendoff calls the 'universal grinder' -- "after the traffic accident= =20 #>there #>#>was man all over the pavement". Bare count nouns can't usually be gener= ics: #>#>"Man" is a lexically-specific exception. #># #>#But in Lojban, all predicate words can be used interchangeably in that #>#manner. It may be hard to translate some of them into English to show t= he #>#parallelism, though. #> #>I know you've said this before, and I am personally sympathetic to a #>certain version of your story, but I think the Populace of Lojbanistan #>is against you on this. # #The populace of Lojbanistan just hasn't run into the contexts where such=20 #would make sense. Hardly. When people use lei/loi, it is usually because le/lo would not be appropriate. However, on your story the contrast with le/lo would evaporate, and you would expect lei/loi not to be used. #>I don't have a problem with that gloss of what 'stereotypical' means. But= it #>is not what {le'e} should mean. You want {le'e} to mean "a certain in-min= d #>archetype of lo'i broda", while I say it should mean "the archetype of #>le'i broda". # #There is no "the" archetype. I am a Humpty-Dumpty-ist at heart, in that=20 #words mean what we think they mean, which depends on the context and on ou= r=20 #own mental experiences. All archetypes are therefore "in-mind" archetypes= . [I am too tired to express my many objections to this!] #> I.e. you: "le archetype be lo'i broda", me: "lo pa archetype #>be le'i broda". # #I cannot see where, given that archetypes depend on our personal concepts= =20 #of what words mean, the two alternative formulations make meaningful=20 #differences. # #>#As has been noted in the #>#news of late, the archetype of "crusade" is something different for Musl= ims #>#than it is for Westerners (and particularly Bush, who used the word in a #>#speech). Given that "le" is speaker's in-mind, it seemed to me that the #>#stereotype would be the archetype used by a speaker. #> #>I understand (and understood). It's not foolish that in trying to deduce #>the meaning of {le'e} you'd come up with "le archetype be lo'i broda". #>However, I was arguing that it should be "lo pa archetype be le'i broda". #>When John said I was being ultra-orthodox, I then pointed out that that #>meant the mahoste was wrong. # #I don't see how either alternative is other-than a stereotype. Your not=20 #getting across to me what the difference is in English (I can see that you= =20 #are using different Lojban words, and usually different Lojban wordings=20 #result in some kind of distinction, but I'm not seeing what it is). Since I have addressed these matters in other messages, & since I'm knackered, I won't repeat myself here. #>#If the only movies I have ever seen are spaghetti westerns, then my in-m= ind #>#archetype of a skina will indeed star Lee Van Cleef. #> #>Fair enough, but I would be as entitled to challenge the veracity of #>{lo'e skina stars Lee Van Cleef} as I would be to challenge the veractity= of #>{ro skina stars Lee Van Cleef}. # #Of course. But I thought we were arguing about le'e. In that case, I don't see why you said what you said. How was it relevant? --And.