In a message dated 10/28/2001 1:12:46 PM Central Standard Time, a.rosta@dtn.ntl.com writes:
It's not an accidental error: his idea was to use the otherwise apparently I know it was deliberate, but I think it an error nonetheless. Bythat usage what you are said to want is a typical whatever and so an atypical one would not do, presumably. But, of course, an atypical one that satisfied your need or... would do fine: you any old whatever. As for the rest of it, the whole point of {tu'a} is to prevent the quantifier on -- or one derived from -- the sumti from rising to the upper level, so ofcourse the quantifier goes on the {le nu ... co'e} that {tu'a} indicates. Where has this been doubted? It thus is not an exception to thequantifier rules and, insofar as it appears to be, it is there precisely to remind you not to pull quantifiers out of 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 whichare pretty obvious. {lo'e} seems to enter into at least two of them,since Lojban has lost (I just noticed) the distinction between typical andaverage, God knows when or why. Maybe there is another handy way to say "per capita" 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 the categorial individual itself.> Well, it will fail -- at least to be useful -- if it cannot be given some meaningful content. Historically, it has been used as a magic wandto cover cases that could not be made to fit otherwise (this is not necessarily a strong criticism, since most theories in linguistics suffer from this problem to a greater or less extent -- galloping adhocitis is a professional disease). So, given a class, even a natural kind, what is its category or its prototype or its categorical individual? Is it a blueprint or a member of the class or a way of talking about the class fuzzily or..... If we are going to summon this thing, we need some clues about what it is. Note that none of these things lives in Africa -- except perhaps a member of the group. What properties does it really have? How are they relevant to properties of members of the group? <). 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 members, not individuals and versions, except in the st-worm-segment sense. And it is not clear what the version-ofs (or maybe it is the individuals) would be like. I suspect that his is Mr. Rabbit come round again,and that has always failed to gain adherents precisely because it is too muddled 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, and of course means that the individual has properties that none of its versions has and conversely). <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 to be useless. Given a is a member of A, represented (however that is intended) by *a, what is the reelation between properties of *a, ofa, of each member of A? That is the problem with {lo'e, le'e} and introducing *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 obscure, just very personal, but that is another matter). <What is the quantifier on "li" and "me'o"?> I don't think there is one, since they attach always to unique objects. That is, I think that, grammar aside -- but not really even that given their 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 getting it hideously wrong. So stick with what you know is right,even if there is something righter that you miss. (The first examle is directive not descriptive, so less a problem, the second just suffers from time scope ambiguities, which Lojban ought to be able to do elegantly.) |