lo'e: Solomontean capitulation: resend

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

Resending because of proofing

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, construct a 
single entity that is meant to be representative in some way of the 
population. lV'e broda have no denotation, and are intensional 
constructs.

Since lo'e and le'e are not denotational, their meaning can only be 
determined by the sense relations they enter into with the rest of the 
language --- in effect, what may be predicated of them. 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 
individual instances 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 singularisations 
are all objective: they 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 singularisations. 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 
(Stereotype).

The prototypical singularisation 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 I hesitate to 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 interrogating 
the singularisation --- but does not allow the specificity, the 
membership of the sample population, to be interrogated in the same 
way. 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.

== == == == == == == == == == == == == == == == == ==
Nick Nicholas, Breathing | le'o ko na rivbi fi'inai palci je tolvri 
danlu
opoudjis@opoudjis.net | -- Miguel Cervantes tr. Jorge 
LLambias