From arosta@uclan.ac.uk Thu Nov 01 04:56:33 2001 Return-Path: X-Sender: arosta@uclan.ac.uk X-Apparently-To: lojban@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-8_0_0_1); 1 Nov 2001 12:56:33 -0000 Received: (qmail 5025 invoked from network); 1 Nov 2001 12:56:33 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.26) by l9.egroups.com with QMQP; 1 Nov 2001 12:56:33 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO com1.uclan.ac.uk) (193.61.255.3) by mta1 with SMTP; 1 Nov 2001 12:56:32 -0000 Received: from gwise-gw1.uclan.ac.uk by com1.uclan.ac.uk with SMTP (Mailer); Thu, 1 Nov 2001 12:33:06 +0000 Received: from DI1-Message_Server by gwise-gw1.uclan.ac.uk with Novell_GroupWise; Thu, 01 Nov 2001 13:07:50 +0000 Message-Id: X-Mailer: Novell GroupWise 5.5.2 Date: Thu, 01 Nov 2001 13:07:39 +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: 11835 >>> 11/01/01 01:25am >>> #arosta@uclan.ac.uk writes: #> First of all, hang on: if what you're saying is addressed to me, then I = had=20 #> explicitly #> said to John that I don't think lo'e should be understood in terms of=20 #> typicality #> or averageness -- at least not definitionally. # #aHAH! Though I should have known it from past performance, I did=20 #entirely miss that what And was about was not explaining {lo'e} but rather= =20 #proposing an entirely new use for {lo'e}, which he seems to think is not=20 #presently being adequately -- or appropriately -- employed. Thus, all of = my=20 #comments about prototype theory not doing a good job of capturing=20 #typicality or averageness were irrelevant to his arguments(I wish And had= =20 #noted that earlier; it might have shortened the time before I saw what he= =20 #was about).=20=20 It was there in my original message. I know you read it, because you replie= d=20 to it. In that message I laid out currently mooted construals, gave some=20 reasons for not accepting them, and proposed a fourth. #So, "it doesn't explain 'typical'" is out; what is left? # #1. Could Lojban advantageously use prototype theory? Yes. there are a=20 #variety of theoretical and even practical questions for which some version= =20 #of other of prototype theory seems the most illumination approach: type- #token, eme-allo, work and particular copy, to cite three that have come up= =20 #over the years in Lojban. I infer from this that you think of prototypes as blueprints. That is, the thing that you describe as a "prototype" is something that could also be described as a blueprint. #2. Does Lojban already have the means to deal with these? Yes and no. It= =20 #could easily create predicates that would cover these cases (a few are eve= n=20 #around, I think, from previous efforts) and thus talk about the problem=20 #pretty clearly. This has not been done systematically in Lojban. And --a= nd=20 #I take this to be And's point -- there is no consistent way to display the= =20 #results of this discussion when it is relevant: no way to show -- when it = is=20 #important -- whether we are talking about the highest prototype letter a o= r=20 #the particular smudge of ink at this point on this page -- or any of the=20 #prototypes (or versions, depending) in between. And, of course, no way to= =20 #avoid making the distinction when it doesn't make a difference. I'm getting this rare but pleasant warm feeling of having been understood by you.... Particularly the last sentence. #3. Is there a clear prototype theory? Wellll. As such things=20 #(philosophical or linguistic theories) go, several pretty clear ones, all= =20 #similar enough to handle most of the same problems similarly, different=20 #enough to allow arguments about hard cases. # #4. Does prototype theory require a new ontology? Not necessarily. Most = say=20 #something vaguely like what And has (even more vaguely) presented, but som= e=20 #claim this is merely a convenience and then (try to?) unpack it in terms o= f=20 #various machines of linguistics or logic (finite state automata,=20 #transformations, Adjukeiwicz cancellation grammars, ....),=20 I'll take your word for it mate ;-) #whiles others really seem to believe the stuff they say (though what they = say is=20 #rarely blatantly self-contradictory).=20 # #5. Does this mean that prototypes should replace typicals as the referent= s=20 #of {lo'e} expressions? Not obviously.=20=20 I think this needs to be unpicked: A. Do prototypes merit gadri? B. Do typicals merit gadri? C. What do lo'e/le'e mean? Obviously I say Yes to A. As for B, I'm all in favour of being able to talk about the average chicagoan and her 7.1 sexual partners, but before accepting that there should be gadri for this purpose, I would like to see how the distinction between what John called "typical properties of broda" versus "properties of the typical broda" is expressed. Finally, as for C, I think it would be to the benefit of the language if lo'e/le'e expressed prototypes (categorial individuals, myopic singulars), but it's not something we can sensibly argue about, and experimental cmavo loi'e and lei'e should keep happy whoever is on the losing end=20 of any argument about C. #On the one hand, it is not clear that=20 #prototypes are nearly as common as typicals as points we want to make or=20 #distinctions that cause problems. Further, it is not clear that gadri are= =20 #the appropriate way to make prototype/version distinctions: these are=20 #relative distinctions after all, not absolute ones (like genus/species=20 #outside biological taxonomy), with a series of prototypes/versions between= =20 #top and bottom (though usually transitively settled, so that this smudge o= n=20 #this page is a version of the letter a (as well as of my a's, script a's,= =20 #italic a's ....). Of course, there is the other side; that, since typical= s=20 #are not really individuals, they should not be represented by gadri at all= .=20=20 #But much the same can be said about several versions of prototypes. #In short, now that I understand what And is about, I am no closer to think= ing=20 #he has made his case than I was before, I just know what the case is. Something that is ordinarily conceptualized as an individual and expressed= =20 as a sumti can be reconceptualized as a category and expressed as a selbri by means of {me}. Now, how to we take something that is ordinarily conceptualized as a category and expressed as a selbri and reconceptualize it as an individual and express it as a sumti? The usual criterion for deciding whether something is ordinarily conceptualized and expressed as an individual or as a category is whether there is only one X or whether there are many X. The reconceptualization then involves seeing only one X instead of many (for lo'e), and seeking many X instead of just one (for {me}). To me this calls for a gadri both in its very nature and because it makes all other gadri inappropriate. --And.