From pycyn@aol.com Sun Oct 28 18:00:29 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 02:00:29 -0000
Received: (qmail 96638 invoked from network); 29 Oct 2001 02:00:28 -0000
Received: from unknown (10.1.10.142)
  by 10.1.1.220 with QMQP; 29 Oct 2001 02:00:28 -0000
Received: from unknown (HELO imo-d04.mx.aol.com) (205.188.157.36)
  by mta3 with SMTP; 29 Oct 2001 02:00:28 -0000
Received: from Pycyn@aol.com
	by imo-d04.mx.aol.com (mail_out_v31_r1.8.) id r.5b.1dc8e0e8 (3981)
	 for <lojban@yahoogroups.com>; Sun, 28 Oct 2001 21:00:24 -0500 (EST)
Message-ID: <5b.1dc8e0e8.290e1237@aol.com>
Date: Sun, 28 Oct 2001 21:00:23 EST
Subject: Re: [lojban] a construal of lo'e & le'e
To: lojban@yahoogroups.com
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="part1_5b.1dc8e0e8.290e1237_boundary"
X-Mailer: AOL 6.0 for Windows US sub 10535
From: pycyn@aol.com
X-Yahoo-Profile: kaliputra
X-Yahoo-Message-Num: 11717

           
--part1_5b.1dc8e0e8.290e1237_boundary 
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

In a message dated 10/28/2001 1:12:46 PM Central Standard Time,=20
a.rosta@dtn.ntl.com writes:


> It's not an accidental error: his idea was to use the otherwise apparentl=
y
> useless lo'e to solve an unsolved problem. I don't think lo'e is useless;=
 I
> now think it is vital, but I think Jorge's usage still works.
>=20
> The problem with {tu'a lo broda} is that it hasn't been established which
> bridi's prenex the lo quantifier is in: is it in the bridi that tu'a lo
> broda is in, or is it in the imaginary bridi that would replace tu'a lo
> broda? Only the latter fixes the problem, but it (usefully) turns tu'a in=
to=20
> an
> exception to the usual quantifier scope rules.
>=20

I know it was deliberate, but I think it an error nonetheless.  By that usa=
ge=20
what you are said to want is a typical whatever and so an atypical one woul=
d=20
not do, presumably.  But, of course, an atypical one that satisfied your ne=
ed=20
or... would do fine: you any old whatever.  As for the rest of it, the whol=
e=20
point of {tu'a} is to prevent the quantifier on -- or one derived from -- t=
he=20
sumti from rising to the upper level, so of course the quantifier goes on t=
he=20
{le nu ... co'e} that {tu'a} indicates.  Where has this been doubted?  It=20
thus is not an exception to the quantifier rules and, insofar as it appears=
=20
to be, it is there precisely to remind you not to pull quantifiers out of=20
intensional contexts.

<> OTOH , the claim is only true of 1
> really and an abbreviation might well be useful for resolving some
> ambiguities efficiently (Swedes eat more yogurt than Danes).

I'd resolve this as loi versus lo'e.>

The sentence is said to be five ways ambiguous, at least three of which are=
=20
pretty obvious.  {lo'e} seems to enter into at least two of them, since=20
Lojban has lost (I just noticed) the distinction between typical and averag=
e,=20
God knows when or why.  Maybe there is another handy way to say "per capita=
"=20
in these contexts.

<The "abstracting away from individuating differences" method of deriving
the categorial individual may fail to work sometimes, but not the notion of=
=20
the
categorial individual itself.>

Well, it will fail -- at least to be useful -- if it cannot be given some=20
meaningful content.  Historically, it has been used as a magic wand to cove=
r=20
cases that could not be made to fit otherwise  (this is not necessarily a=20
strong criticism, since most theories in linguistics suffer from this probl=
em=20
to a greater or less extent -- galloping adhocitis is a professional=20
disease).  So, given a class, even a natural kind, what is its category or=
=20
its prototype or its categorical individual?  Is it a blueprint or a member=
=20
of the class or a way of talking about the class fuzzily or.....  If we are=
=20
going to summon this thing, we need some clues about what it is.  Note that=
=20
none of these things lives in Africa -- except perhaps a member of the grou=
p.=20
 What properties does it really have?  How are they relevant to properties =
of=20
members of the group?

<).=A0 The lV'e version implies a fictive
> element which is presumably not only irrelevant but flat wrong.

I don't think it should imply a fictive element. It should imply only
an ontology consistent with prototype theory, so that instead of
Category and Member-of we have Individual and Version-of.>

Unfortunately, the ontology of Lojban (yes, it has one) has sets and member=
s,=20
not individuals and versions, except in the st-worm-segment sense.  And it =
is=20
not clear what the version-ofs (or maybe it is the individuals) would be=20
like.  I suspect that his is Mr. Rabbit come round again, and that has alwa=
ys=20
failed to gain adherents precisely because it is too muddled to convince=20
anyone (or else it is some version of Platonism -- come to think of it, of=
=20
course it is -- in which case the question of connection -- which may not b=
e=20
important in the present sense -- remains unsolved, and of course means tha=
t=20
the individual has properties that none of its versions has and conversely)=
.=20=20

<But his Mr Rabbit (even if he got it from Malinowski or some other
such ancient) seems to me to be rather prescient, prefiguring ideas
that became commonplace only in the last fifteen years.>

Well, ignoring 2500 years ago and ever since, but almost always so muddled =
as=20
to be useless.  Given a is a member of A, represented (however that is=20
intended) by *a, what is the reelation between properties of *a, of a, of=20
each member of A?  That is the problem with {lo'e, le'e} and introducing *a=
=20
does not seem to get it any forrader, since the answers there are also=20
unknown (I actually don't think the answers for {lo'e} are that obscure, ju=
st=20
very personal, but that is another matter).=20=20

<What is the quantifier on "li" and "me'o"?>
I don't think there is one, since they attach always to unique objects.  Th=
at=20
is, I think that, grammar aside -- but not really even that given their=20
restrictions -- they are not gadri.

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

Not always easy to figure out, though. "The customer is always right",
"The postman misdelivered our mail (often/yesterday)"... Having some
foolproof recipes is useful.>

But a foolproof recipe always gets it right, not merely usually keeps from=
=20
getting it hideously wrong.  So stick with what you know is right, even if=
=20
there is something righter that you miss.  (The first examle is directive n=
ot=20
descriptive, so less a problem, the second just suffers from time scope=20
ambiguities, which Lojban ought to be able to do elegantly.)


=20



           
--part1_5b.1dc8e0e8.290e1237_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 10/28/2001 1:12:46 PM Central Standard Time, a.rosta@d=
tn.ntl.com writes:
<BR>
<BR>
<BR><BLOCKQUOTE TYPE=3DCITE style=3D"BORDER-LEFT: #0000ff 2px solid; MARGIN=
-LEFT: 5px; MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px; PADDING-LEFT: 5px">It's not an accidental er=
ror: his idea was to use the otherwise apparently
<BR>useless lo'e to solve an unsolved problem. I don't think lo'e is useles=
s; I
<BR>now think it is vital, but I think Jorge's usage still works.
<BR>
<BR>The problem with {tu'a lo broda} is that it hasn't been established whi=
ch
<BR>bridi's prenex the lo quantifier is in: is it in the bridi that tu'a lo
<BR>broda is in, or is it in the imaginary bridi that would replace tu'a lo
<BR>broda? Only the latter fixes the problem, but it (usefully) turns tu'a =
into an
<BR>exception to the usual quantifier scope rules.
<BR></BLOCKQUOTE></FONT><FONT  COLOR=3D"#000000" SIZE=3D3 FAMILY=3D"SANSSER=
IF" FACE=3D"Arial" LANG=3D"0">
<BR>
<BR>I know it was deliberate, but I think it an error nonetheless. &nbsp;By=
 that usage what you are said to want is a typical whatever and so an atypi=
cal one would not do, presumably. &nbsp;But, of course, an atypical one tha=
t satisfied your need or... would do fine: you any old whatever. &nbsp;As f=
or the rest of it, the whole point of {tu'a} is to prevent the quantifier o=
n -- or one derived from -- the sumti from rising to the upper level, so of=
 course the quantifier goes on the {le nu ... co'e} that {tu'a} indicates. =
&nbsp;Where has this been doubted? &nbsp;It thus is not an exception to the=
 quantifier rules and, insofar as it appears to be, it is there precisely t=
o remind you not to pull quantifiers out of intensional contexts.
<BR>
<BR>&lt;&gt; OTOH , the claim is only true of 1
<BR>&gt; really and an abbreviation might well be useful for resolving some
<BR>&gt; ambiguities efficiently (Swedes eat more yogurt than Danes).
<BR>
<BR>I'd resolve this as loi versus lo'e.&gt;
<BR>
<BR>The sentence is said to be five ways ambiguous, at least three of which=
 are pretty obvious. &nbsp;{lo'e} seems to enter into at least two of them,=
 since Lojban has lost (I just noticed) the distinction between typical and=
 average, God knows when or why. &nbsp;Maybe there is another handy way to =
say "per capita" in these contexts.
<BR>
<BR>&lt;The "abstracting away from individuating differences" method of der=
iving
<BR>the categorial individual may fail to work sometimes, but not the notio=
n of the
<BR>categorial individual itself.&gt;
<BR>
<BR>Well, it will fail -- at least to be useful -- if it cannot be given so=
me meaningful content. &nbsp;Historically, it has been used as a magic wand=
 to cover cases that could not be made to fit otherwise &nbsp;(this is not =
necessarily a strong criticism, since most theories in linguistics suffer f=
rom this problem to a greater or less extent -- galloping adhocitis is a pr=
ofessional disease). &nbsp;So, given a class, even a natural kind, what is =
its category or its prototype or its categorical individual? &nbsp;Is it a =
blueprint or a member of the class or a way of talking about the class fuzz=
ily or..... &nbsp;If we are going to summon this thing, we need some clues =
about what it is. &nbsp;Note that none of these things lives in Africa -- e=
xcept perhaps a member of the group. &nbsp;What properties does it really h=
ave? &nbsp;How are they relevant to properties of members of the group?
<BR>
<BR>&lt;).=A0 The lV'e version implies a fictive
<BR>&gt; element which is presumably not only irrelevant but flat wrong.
<BR>
<BR>I don't think it should imply a fictive element. It should imply only
<BR>an ontology consistent with prototype theory, so that instead of
<BR>Category and Member-of we have Individual and Version-of.&gt;
<BR>
<BR>Unfortunately, the ontology of Lojban (yes, it has one) has sets and me=
mbers, not individuals and versions, except in the st-worm-segment sense. &=
nbsp;And it is not clear what the version-ofs (or maybe it is the individua=
ls) would be like. &nbsp;I suspect that his is Mr. Rabbit come round again,=
 and that has always failed to gain adherents precisely because it is too m=
uddled to convince anyone (or else it is some version of Platonism -- come =
to think of it, of course it is -- in which case the question of connection=
 -- which may not be important in the present sense -- remains unsolved, an=
d of course means that the individual has properties that none of its versi=
ons has and conversely). &nbsp;
<BR>
<BR>&lt;But his Mr Rabbit (even if he got it from Malinowski or some other
<BR>such ancient) seems to me to be rather prescient, prefiguring ideas
<BR>that became commonplace only in the last fifteen years.&gt;
<BR>
<BR>Well, ignoring 2500 years ago and ever since, but almost always so mudd=
led as to be useless. &nbsp;Given a is a member of A, represented (however =
that is intended) by *a, what is the reelation between properties of *a, of=
 a, of each member of A? &nbsp;That is the problem with {lo'e, le'e} and in=
troducing *a does not seem to get it any forrader, since the answers there =
are also unknown (I actually don't think the answers for {lo'e} are that ob=
scure, just very personal, but that is another matter). &nbsp;
<BR>
<BR>&lt;What is the quantifier on "li" and "me'o"?&gt;
<BR>I don't think there is one, since they attach always to unique objects.=
 &nbsp;That is, I think that, grammar aside -- but not really even that giv=
en their restrictions -- they are not gadri.
<BR>
<BR>&lt;&gt; Maybe as a maxim of prudence, but it is always better to figur=
e out
<BR>&gt; what you really mean and say that, rather than just reduce your
<BR>&gt; chances of saying something glaringly false or stupid.
<BR>
<BR>Not always easy to figure out, though. "The customer is always right",
<BR>"The postman misdelivered our mail (often/yesterday)"... Having some
<BR>foolproof recipes is useful.&gt;
<BR>
<BR>But a foolproof recipe always gets it right, not merely usually keeps f=
rom getting it hideously wrong. &nbsp;So stick with what you know is right,=
 even if there is something righter that you miss. &nbsp;(The first examle =
is directive not descriptive, so less a problem, the second just suffers fr=
om time scope ambiguities, which Lojban ought to be able to do elegantly.)
<BR>
<BR>
<BR>=20
<BR>
<BR>
<BR></FONT></HTML>
           
--part1_5b.1dc8e0e8.290e1237_boundary--