Re: [lojban] a construal of lo'e & le'e

[pycyn@aol.com]

In a message dated 10/29/2001 10:14:13 AM Central Standard Time, arosta@uclan.ac.uk writes:

#The fact that the English definition is worded a particular way does not
#signify, except that English is constrained to make such
#distinctions.  remna is "a portion of human" which bears the appropriate
#minimal set of properties associated with its various places "ka remna"
#(without ce'u, or with all places ce'u, I hope).  But the English"is a
#portion of water" makes more sense than "is a water", just as "English"is
#a human" makes more sense than "is a portion of human".

This is not true, because:

(a) A fairly recent debate about "lu pa re ci li'u cu valsi" agreed (iirc) that
it wasn't
(b) Absolutely all usage is against it

And it shouldn't be true, because (c) we then have no surefire way of
counting countables.

Given a-c, either remna doesn't mean "a portion of human", or its definition
specifies what counts as one portion.

#Example, also invoking observatives.  If I run across a body part, I might
#indeed use the observative "remna", even though all I have seen is a part
#of a human.

And, more crucially, might you also say "mi viska pa remna"? And if so,
could you also say "mi viska re remna", when you see just the one severed
leg, or when you see just one person.

I have to pass on a) becauese I don't remember -- and cannot find -- the discussion, though I think I can see from here how it must have gone, andam tempted to say "yes" to it. As to b), the most that can be said about usage is that the occasional person who had gotten wrapped up in mass/count tended to treat the two differently as did malglicists, but that ordinarilythey seem to be treated about the same, unless you can dig up some early stuff directly involved in the "universal grinder" end of the "meaning of {loi} (Loglan {lo})."  That is, as usual, usage is not very illuminating.  And, as for c), well, we don't.  We have ones that work most of the time, but don't decide the hard cases (when the universe replicates at each tick on all the potential alternatives in the state description, arethe continuers of me in all these worlds the same or different?  O gracious, here come prototype categories again!)  
For the leg in the road, saying {re remna} would be permissible semantically but not Griceanly, just as saying {re djacu} of a puddle.  You can have more fun (historically) with two legs which have not been identified as to source -- or a puddle of mercury.

<#>O good. Note that most prevailing interpretations of lo'e (i.e. the best
#>guesses
#>of people who have ventured to make a guess) are unorthodox, and
#>that "le'e" does NOT mean "the stereotypical"; the mahoste is wrong.
#
#No it isn't.  I just had a different understanding of the meaning of
#stereotypical than you apparently to.  To me, "stereotypical"~="archetype",
#but we use the former when we wish to note the subjectivity of what
#constitutes the archetype from vary viewpoints. 

I don't have a problem with that gloss of what 'stereotypical' means. But it
is not what {le'e} should mean. You want {le'e} to mean "a certain in-mind
archetype of lo'i broda", while I say it should mean "the archetype of
le'i broda". I.e. you: "le archetype be lo'i broda", me: "lo pa archetype
be le'i broda".>

I see your point, but I think that the original point is that both {lo'e} and {le'e} are subjective, they differ in that the class of which they are archetypes/stereotypes/prototypes are in one case natural, in the other also subjectively chosen.  Types are are in your head.

<I understand (and understood). It's not foolish that in trying to deduce
the meaning of {le'e} you'd come up with "le archetype be lo'i broda".
However, I was arguing that it should be "lo pa archetype be le'i broda".
When John said I was being ultra-orthodox, I then pointed out that that
meant the mahoste was wrong.>

Non sequitur, being an archetype is just a selection -- mine, whether Iget at it by {le} or {lo} is irrrelevant, since there is only one.

<Fair enough, but I would be as entitled to challenge the veracity of
{lo'e skina stars Lee Van Cleef} as I would be to challenge the veractity of
{ro skina stars Lee Van Cleef}.>

Challenge away, but in the context, you lose.