In a message dated 10/26/2001 7:23:17 AM Central Daylight Time, a.rosta@ntlworld.com writes:
There is nary a shred of consensus about what {lo'e} and {le'e} mean. Surely, {le fadni be fi X}, since it clearly has some relation to a class of things. It may also be restricted in what properties are considered, but that is secondary. <2. The fuzzily-defined xorxesian usage seen in {nitcu lo'e tanxe}, {djica lo'e pendo}, {kalte lo'e mirli}.> But isn't this just one of those rare errors on xorxes part, meaning {tu'a lo broda} but trying to preserve English (surface) structure? Maybe we cannot generalize on {lo'e} but it still seems carry more existential commitment than these predicates allow. or maybe not. But it does get the wrong sort of thing: it is not the "any old" that is really intended here, but a very special (and probably non-existent) one. <3. Something equivalent to {tu'odu'u ce'u broda}> Does anyone really hold this? {lo'e broda} is in some sense a broda (even if imaginary), so rarely a property, unless brodas are. <lo'e/le'e of types (1) and (3) are redundant, being mere abbreviations of other expressions> An odd objection from a person who is constatnly looking for other waysto say the same thing as existing expressions and apparently often intendsfor them to be used. 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). <OTOH, Lojban's lo v. loi (and le v. lei) distinction fails to capture the distinction (which applies to intrinsically bounded individuals, like people, but not to intrinsic masses, like water) between (i) a group of things taken as a whole, and (ii) a prototype-theoretic category, which is an individual such that members of the category are versions of that individual. From what I can gather, Loglan "lo" was formerly (ii) (so "lo remna/prenu/nanmu" = "Man" (not "man")), while nowadays, like Lojban, it is (i) (so "lo remna/prenu/nanmu" = "mankind"). [In former years I called (ii) a "myopic singularizer".] The contrast is evidence in examples like: (i) Mankind has (exactly) two eyes. [false] (ii) Man has (exactly) two eyes. [true] Lojban {re da kanla lo remna} means (i).> Ignotum per ignotius: the Mankind-Man distinction (any one of the several that might be meant) is more obscure than {lo - loi} as is "groupstaken as a whole" (isn't this {lo'i}?) v. "prototype-theoretic category" (whadafu?). The examples also fail to match the readings, as far as the most likely interps go. <So how do we express 'categorial individuals', as in (ii)? -- Using {lo'e}, I propose: {re da kanla lo'e remna}.> Well, at least the Lojban is true, but I don't yet see what a categorial individual is -- unless it means a typical one or something like it, which we already knew. <And what does {le'e} mean? Well, if there is a specific group of one or more individuals, {le} refers to each member of the group individually, {lei} refers to them collectively, somewhat as if you ignore the boundaries between the individuals, while {le'e} refers to the one individual you get if you abstract away from the differences that individuate the different individuals -- in other words, it is the archetype of the group.> aHAH! This is getting a bit better but probably still won't really work, since a {le} group (and even a {lo}) may not have enough such properties to make an individual -- the resemblances may only be familial (and with {le} not even that). "Stand just there" and all. So the abstraction process has to be at least more complex than this pattern suggests-- closer to "the average X," though that will be inadequate in other ways. xod: <However, I am not sure that I like the difference between lo'e and le'e being much different than the difference between lo and le (or lo'i, le'i). lo'e remna = categorial individual of lo remna le'e remna = categorial individual of le remna And let the difference reflect whatever difference there is between lo remna and le remna. Actual Lojban usage seems to have contracted le and lo into le. If you want to re-assert the difference, le/lo is where you should apply your energy.> While agreeing with the final point, I think that the {le'e lo'e} distinction & proposes does match that of {le lo} -- it is just that it is inadequate and so inaccurate for both. &: <I do want to wage war against excessive use of {le}. Doubtless it'll be futile, but still it might be worthwhile. The problem is that people are influenced by phonology when choosing 'default' forms, and hence 'le' and 'lo' feel more default than lei/loi/le'e/lo'e. Yet for singleton categories, 'le' and 'lo' are actually the least appropriate, involving redundant quantification, and even lei/loi wrongly imply the relevance of a distributive/collective distinction. So for singleton categories, le'e/lo'e should be the default. At any rate, I myself will now be ditching {tu'odu'u} and start using {lo'e du'u} instead.> An arguable point, with a lot of merit on &'s side, but the singular as universal is deeply embedded in the history of logic (which had, admittedly, fewer resources). The lV'e version implies a fictive element which is presumably not only irrelevant but flat wrong. One does regret JCB's rejection of the descriptors of ordinary logic in favor of his own oddities, especially when he did such an abominable -- not to say contradictory -- job of defining them (to which Lojban has added new fillips). <ex rob > Thank you for ditching {tu'odu'u} - using tu'o as an article seemsto be > just a way to deliberately communicate nothing. Exactly! It was a way of avoiding communicating unnecessary informationand having to decide which unnecessary information to communicate. But I now realize that lo'e will do this job.> I don't see it as a general principle: {lo'e} carries its own freight. the virtue of {tu'o} is exactly that it is freightless. <{ro} too requires great caution -- you have to check scopes are correct, & are you sure you really mean "every"... Certainly if you have no specifics in mind then a LE-series one is wrong. But ro v. lo v. loi v. lo'e still has tobe decided. To me, lo'e is by far the safest option.> 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. cowan: <(iii) Man(kind) speaks six thousand languages. (true) (iv) Man speaks six thousand languages. (false) (v) A man speaks six thousand languages. (false)> What does iv mean? It is not (as it normally would be) iii and can hardly be v. xod: <For the trivial case of a set containing only one member, doesn't le'e reduce to le [pa]? What's the archetype of a singleton; what is the mean of a single event?> Not necessarily, for the archetype may still be different from the actual realization (or, more accurately, the other way round) -- the realization has particular features that are not archetypal. Of course, this assumes that lV'e is an archetype rather than just a typical, etc. Which goes back to the initial question. pier: <{reda kanla lo'e remna} sounds not quite right - it should be {lo'eremna cu se kanla reda}. > What is the quantifier on {lo'e} that makes this exchange different? |