lo'e: Solomontean capitulation

[Nick Nicholas <opoudjis@optushome.com.au>]

Lojbanists, thanks to Bob's crucial insight (lo'e is a predicate), I 
think I've got a compromise formulation that will satisfy everybody.

lo'e, le'e: particles which, given a population of broda, constructs a 
single entity that is meant to be representative in some way of the 
population. lo'e broda has no denotation, and is an intensional 
construct.

Since lo'e and le'e are not denotational, its meaning can only be 
determined by the sense relations it enters into with the rest of the 
language --- in effect, what may be predicated on it. Since lo'e broda 
in particular is intended to be representative of the population of 
{broda}, the claims predicable of lo'e broda need to be related in some 
way to the claims predicable of the individual members of {broda}.

There are several ways in which such claims can be abstracted to a 
single entity (singularisation) and remain representative. A predicate 
can be claimed as true of lo'e broda if it holds true of a majority of 
{broda} (Mode). It may be claimed true of lo'e broda if it is the 
average of the values of the elements of {broda} (Average). It may be 
claimed true of lo'e broda if it is the median of the values of the 
elements of {broda} (Median). These ways are all objective: the claim 
an extensional knowledge of the entire population.

It is possible to have objective singularisations which are 
unrepresentative; for instance, Maximum.

There are also subjective ways of abstracting such claims. A predicate 
can be claimed as true of le'e broda if it holds true of the best 
exemplars of {broda}, for some culture-specific notion of 'best' 
(Exemplar). A predicate can be claimed as true of le'e broda if it 
draws on instances of {broda} regarded in a culture-specifically 
negative light, and with no concern for objective evaluation of the 
entire population (Exemplar).

The prototypical means of abstraction is intermediate between these 
two. Like the subjective means, the prototype is a culture- and 
experience-specific construct. However, where fuzzy membership into the 
set of {broda} is allowed, the prototypical traits are as close as one 
can come to an objective set of criteria for evaluating membership. The 
prototype is, as it were, a benignly subjective construct, which still 
has some claims of representativeness of the entire population.

lo'e is a predicate relating a singular entity, a population, and a 
means of singularisation. As is typical of Lojban predicates, when the 
value of the singularisation is not made explicit, it is deemed 
underspecified. This means that without further specification, lo'e 
brode may be Median, Mode, or Average; any statement involving lo'e 
broda will be true in all three cases. The decision on which 
singularisation applies is left to pragmatics (but see on defaults 
below), and must be interrogable by the interlocutor --- again, as is 
characteristic of Lojban predicates.

Since there is no provision in Lojban for places of gadri, the 
singularisation is specified by {pe veju'o} after {lo'e/e'e broda}. 
Possible values include: {mupli}: exemplary, ---- {stereotype}, 
{klusi'o}: prototype, {kantymidju}: median, {cnano}: average, 
{cmikantymau}: mode

The distinction between lo'e and le'e, given past keywords and the 
parallels in the lo/le paradigm, can be based on the following features:

+/- veridical
+/- specific (whether the population is all of broda or a specific 
subset}
+/- objective
+/- representative

I want +/- objective to be the criterion, and while I do not consider 
prototype to be objective (or even veridical --- if veridicality even 
applies to this construct). However, this setup for lo'e readily allows 
the objectivity and representativeness to be discerned by interrogative 
the singularisation --- but does not allow the specificity, the 
membership of the sample population, to be interrogated. Therefore And 
wins: the distinction between lo'e and le'e is one of specifity.

While officially lo'e and le'e are by default underspecified as to 
singularisation, I believe there are sensible defaults. IMO only,

lo'e: +objective +representative
le'e: -objective -representative

This allows le'e to remain stereotypical, and lo'e to remain typical.

My own opinion is that the prototype is -objective +representative.
Maximum is +objective -representative.

Defaults should be settable in advance in a discourse ("All my 
singularisations shall be prototypes".) Moreover, I would be 
sympathetic to exp.cmavo of the form, say, lo'e'V disambiguating 
between the various singularisations (say lo'e'a for prototype, lo'e'e 
for median.) But lo'e itself should be officially underspecified as to 
singularisation.

--
DR NICK NICHOLAS. FRENCH/ITALIAN, UNIVERSITY OF MELBOURNE, AUSTRALIA.
nickn@unimelb.edu.au Tour orghnie tou gerou na ninere,
http://www.opoudjis.net tou p!ounte si na mh si ninere:
"Hearken to an old man's advice --- not to his farts." Tsakonian 
proverb.