epistemology

["Steven M. Belknap" <sbelknap@UIC.EDU>]

Are lojban meanings intrinsic or invented?

or more fuzzily:

To what extent are lojban meanings intrinsic and to what extent are they
invented?

This may not be a question about lojban so much as it is a question of the
nature of language and knowledge. I personally do not think that there is a
meaningful way in which a predicate can be divorced from the concept to
which it is mapped. That is, I do not believe that there is an intrinsic
non-linguistic concept of objects for humans. But this view of objects does
not address grammatical matters.

xorxe cusku di'e

I think the two possibilities are:

        re lo jubme cu se tuple vo lo tuple

(1)     Two tables have four legs each.

(2)     Each of two tables are in relationship "se tuple" with
        each of four legs.

Each of the bridi & cmavo is defined, and the grammer is defined. Is there
any ambiguity then as to what the lojban means? Is Jorge attempting to
translate an unambiguous lojban sentence into english (an inferior language
not quite up to the task), or is he arguing that one possible translation
must be chosen over the other? To what extent are meanings in lojban
arbitrary, requiring adoption of a conventional usage to facilitate
understanding? Or are we still trying to define some elements of scoping
rules in grammer? (This is what I thought was going on, but after reading
some recent examples, I'm confused.)

la lojbad cusku di'e

>Lojban is metaphysically neutral on the question of infinite
>divisibility.  Since it has "selci" it clearly has the notion of a basic
>subunit.  Since it has "gunma", it has the notion of an indefinitely (if
>not infinitely) subdividable mass.  The examples of "lo broda" that we
>are talking about here do not necessarily stipulate whether the
>individual units are gunma or selci.

OK, I can grok that. Excellent distinction between indefinitely and
infinitely divisable. I like it. But if all this is true, then IMHO the
definitions in the lojban-english dictionary ought to reflect the
metaphysical neutrality on the question of infinite divisibility. A users
guide to the dictionary might help to avoid impossibly long definitions for
each.
"riceishness" seems closer to what you want rismi to mean in lojban.
Obviously that is a clumsy english translation. But shouldn't the
definitions reflect that the semasiology of the lojban predicate differs
from the english noun/verb/adjective/adverb as to case, number, mass vs
discrete quantity?

>> The lojban dictionary does NOT support your assertion that /loi djacu/ is
>> preferred to /lei djacu/

>The Lojban dictionary wouldn't say.  It defines "djacu", and not "loi
>djacu" or "lei djacu".

Recalling that a mole is 6.02E23 molecules of something this type of
description would be a discrete or "selci" type of description,

lei cibi molro djacu

but kilogram and litce are indefinitely subdivisable  or "gunma" types of
mass description.

le cibi ki'ogerna djacu

and

le cibi litce djacu

(Do I have this right, or should the gunma concept "38 liters of water"
also be /lei cibi litce djacu/?)


/le djacu/ means the-thing-I-am-labeling a single glass of water, an
individual molecule of water or whatever.

but what about

lo djacu and loi djacu

lo djacu

is supposed to be the same as

da poi djacu

for nonempty sets of djacu

Is it correct to refer to the pacific ocean as /lo djacu/? There's a lot of
individual elements of the pacific ocean that are not H2O. Even if its all
"water", some moieties are in the form H30+ or OH-. And what about D2O? Is
that "water"? Is fuzziness built in to the way lo & loi are used, or does
every element of an instance of water have to be water for the designated
thing to be called lo djacu? This would seem to make lo djacu not usable
for nearly all actual instances of water.

la stivn


Steven M. Belknap, M.D.
Assistant Professor of Clinical Pharmacology and Medicine
University of Illinois College of Medicine at Peoria

email: sbelknap@uic.edu
Voice: 309/671-3403
Fax:   309/671-8413