[lojban] Re: Oldbie Question

[John E Clifford <lojban-out@lojban.org>]

lojbab;
>>pc:
>>>>blue dog is a dog that is blue for a dog, not
>>>>simply a dog that is (in some absolute sense)
>>>>blue.  Indeed, if we went by the scientific
>>>>stuff, a blue dog probably wouldn't be blue
at
>>>>all, being nearer to several other standard
>chips(or whatever test) than to 
>blue.
>>>>
>If so, then in Lojban it shouldn't be called a
>"blue dog" but rather
>whatever other standard chip applies.

No, nothing in Lojban {blanu} suggests the use of
paragon chips; indeed, as you just noted, that
was explicitly excluded -- along with all other
specifications. So, we can continue to use
{blanu} as we use "blue,"  though the linguistic
point is no better made in Lojban than in English
(unlike the situation in Loglan).

>>>>(they not ever getting very close to standard
>>>>blues, after all) it is blue.
>>>>      
>>>>
>It is closer to the paragon of a blue dog than
it >is to the paragon of a
>red dog.

Not obviously and not just because there ain't no
paragon red dog (nor blue one neither).  It might
in fact be fairly close to the normative red dog
and thus not be a red dog, since not red for a
dog at all.

>But of course in Lojban, we have explicitly said
>that we do not KNOW
>what the relationship is between a modifier and
>its modificand in a
>tanru.  The "blue for a dog" interpretation is
>merely one of an infinite
>number of possibilities for the meaning of blanu
>gerku, all of which are
>valid.

Perfectly true and totally irrelevant.  We are
talking about intralinguistic potentials here. 
Quite aside from the fact that, while any number
of relations are possible, usually only one and
rarely more than three have any Gricean presence
in a given context, the combinatoric potential is
there across the board. And is not present in a
number of other words/concepts as part of their
semantics.
 
>>>> 
>>>>
>>>>      
>>>>
>>>But that format only works for attributive
>>>concepts.  Otherwise we have 
>>>to deal with
>>>le prenu cu jubme
>>>being plausible meaning
>>>That person is tablish for a person.
>>>    
>>>
>>.
>But of course {jubme} doesn't -- and never did
->-
>>have a comparison place.  so this line is
simply
>>irrelevant -- unless you hold that any place
any
>>predicate has every predicate has to have,
which
>>is a bit much even for the most regularist
>sorts.
>>>  
>>
>We can attach any BAI place to any predicate,
and >using fi'o we can in
>fact attach any place to any predicate.

And so?  We can attach antlers to a dog, but that
doesn't make it a deer.  There is probably
(indeed, obviously, actually) an "adjectival"
concept related to {jubme} and it would (and
indeed does) have an underlying comparative base.
 We get to it by modifying the original concept
by adding a place (and so the word by adding a
BAI -- I'm not sure which one).  There is also a
less adjectival Loglan {blanu} reached by
dropping a place (the second), meaning maybe
something like "is about the same color as some
blue color chip"
 
>Wioth zi'o we can remove any
>place from any predicate too, so the regularists
>won the battle %^)  No
>brivla really means anything if you can load it
>up with strangeness for
>a place structure (X is blue fi'o se zmadu more
>than Y fi'o ve klama by
>route Z???) .  It is the places actually filled
>and overtly ellipsized
>(by being part of the defined place structure)
>that matter.

Errh.  You just shot down your own point,
assuming you were making one just now.  It is the
basic structure that defines the concept, in
which case, {blanu} is a different concept from
English "blue"(and similarly in a variety of
other languages), since it explicitly excludes a
central part of that concepts meaning.  And the
fact that we can build up English "blue" from
{blanu} does not mean anything at all.

>At which point I should stop since this really
>started out as Nora's
>argument, and she may have better ideas how to
>clarify any disagreement
>that remains, and my mind is bending in strange
>directions as I
>contemplate the route of blue %^>>)