Re: di'e preti zo nu

[Robin Turner <robin@bilkent.edu.tr>]

la xorxes. cusku di'e

>
> >(3)  lo'e merko cu cladu tavla
> >(3) would mean that if a person fulfills both the commonly agreed-on
> criteria for
> >being American and also has characteristics that are actually held by the
> majority of
> >Americans but not of people in general, that person talks loudly.
>
> You seem to be saying that {lo'e merko} is equivalent to {ro lo fadni be le
> ka merko}
> = "Every one who is typical as an American". Is that what you mean?

Hmm, it is a bit ambiguous.  The cmavo list defines {lo'e} as "the typical one(s)
who really is(are) ... ".  Maybe I'm thinking in English: "The typical American
talks loudly", which implies what I've said in (3) and is indeed equivalent to {ro
lo fadni be le ka merko}.  However, given the semantics of {lo}, I'm not sure if
this is what was intended, even though the Book gives that impression e.g.

lo'e cinfo cu xabju le fi'ortu'a

which is tranlsated as

The-typical lion dwells-in the African-land.
The lion dwells in Africa.

and seems to imply {L(x) ^ T(x)} -> A(x) where (using the semantic model I
proposed):

L -> exhibits the defining features of the category LION
T -> exhibits the defining features of the category LION
A -> lives in Africa


>
>
> When I have used {lo'e} it has been with a different meaning, and I used it
> because I thought that neither {le} nor {lo} made sense, so I needed
> something
> else and {lo'e} seemed to be the best there was. One much discussed example
> I remember was {mi nitcu lo'e tanxe}, "I need a box".
>
> The distinction between the three would be something like this:
>
> (1)    mi nitcu le tanxe
> (2)    mi nitcu lo tanxe
> (3)    mi nitcu lo'e tanxe
>
> (1) "I need the box." The question "which box?" shouldn't normally need to
> be asked because the speaker is assuming that the audience undersands
> which box. If the ausience doesn't understand what is it that the speaker is
> referring to by {le tanxe} then they have to ask in order to understand the
> full
> meaning of what the speaker is trying to comunicate.
>
> (2) "There is a box that I need." The question "which box?" has not been
> addressed, but it is a valid question. The full meaning of the sentence
> is understood without need of identifying which box the speaker needs,
> but the audience is being told that there is at least one box which is the
> one needed by the speaker.

Consider the translation of {lo zarci} in the Book:
"one-or-more-of-all-the-things-which-really are-markets".  In this sense {mi nitcu
lo tanxe} would mean "I need one-or-more-of-all-the-things-which-really
are-boxes".  I would see "There is a box that I need" as a near equivalent of "I
need the box", since the defining relative clause implies a specific box.  I would
therefore use {le tanxe} in both cases [note that I am slowly coming round to
Jorge's view that specificity is more important than veridicality!].

>
>
> (3) "I need a box (any box)." The question "which box?" does not make
> sense in this case (or rather, the answer is "any one") because there
> is no box such that I need that particular one. Here I cannot use {lo}
> or {le} and be logically consistent, so I use {lo'e} for lack of anything
> else, not because this has all that much to do with typicality.

In line with what I've just said, {lo tanxe} is better here.  If you say {mi nitcu
lo'e tanxe}, you want a typical box, e.g. a medium sized cardboard container, and
would not be happy with, say, an ivory snuff box.  Given the contexts in which you
would say that you needed a box, {lo'e} is possible but superfluous - which is not
necessarily bad Lojban, but very un-Gricean!

> But if this
> is right, then {lo'e merko} is not the same as {ro lo fadni be le ka merko}.
>
> >(4)  le'e merko cu cladu tavla
> >(4) would mean that a person who corresponds to my idea of an American,
> talks loudly.
>
> What would be the difference between {le'e merko} and {le merko}? By "a
> person"
> do you mean "any person" or "a person I have in mind"?

Well that gets us back to the old specific/veridical bugaboo again.  Perhaps (4)
is wrong and should be something like "my idea of a typical American involves the
characteristic of speaking loudly", similar to the line in the Book:

"Here we are concerned not with the actual set of Greek-Americans, but with the
set of those the speaker has in mind, which is typified by one (real or imaginary)
who owns a restaurant."

Unfortunately, {le'e xelso merko cu gusta ponse} is glossed in two radically
different ways:

 The-stereotypical Greek-type-of American is-a-restaurant-type-of owner.
 Lots of Greek-Americans own restaurants.

The second sentence actually means something quite different, along the lines of
{so'i lo xelso merko cu gusta ponse}.

.oiro'e.o'onai  I have to admit I'm totally confused now!


>
> >If we can agree on and clarify {lo'e} and {le'e}, they could become very
> useful tools
> >in argument, particularly in avoiding sweeping generalisations etc.
>
> I have found a different use for {lo'e}. I don't know if {lo broda fadni} is
> such a
> frequently used concept that needs a special shorthand article for it.
> Besides
> {lo'e broda} is not really all that much shorter than {lo broda fadni}.
>

But it's part of the grammar, and thus more likely to produce a Sapir-Whorf effect
;-)

co'o mi'e robin.