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

[John Cowan <cowan@ccil.org>]

And Rosta scripsit:

> The point I was making that any arbitrary subdivision of loi djacu counts
> equally well as pa djacu, re djacu, ci djacu, truthconditionally,

Well, surely not.  pa djacu cu du lo djacu would not count as true; at least
one must be consistent.  (Oy, I curse the day that I decided to merge
selma'o DU and GOhA.)

> In your descriptions, as in current Loglan documentation, only the
> collectivity interpretation is presented, not the categorial individual/myopic
> singular interp. I only encounter mention of the latter from veterans of
> Loglan days.

Well, yes, I think it's paedagogically easier to grasp.

> I will grant you that every reference to a stereotype could be said with
> le'e, but not vice versa.

Wasn't meant to be.  After all, ma'oste keywords are just keywords, not
full definitions.

> Not every le'e broda is the stereotype of
> lo'i broda (or "lo'e du'u ce'u broda", or however it is we refer to categories).

Well, maybe.  It may be *some* stereotype of lo'i broda, even if not yours.

> Right. So my position is that "lo'e" doesn't *strictly* mean "the
> typical/average member",

I think this results from a confusion between "the average member"
(which does not exist) and "the most average member" (which does).
If we have a series of men, we can say that George is the most
average member of this series, but *the* average member is an
abstraction.

-- 
John Cowan           http://www.ccil.org/~cowan              cowan@ccil.org
Please leave your values        |       Check your assumptions.  In fact,
   at the front desk.           |          check your assumptions at the door.
     --sign in Paris hotel      |            --Miles Vorkosigan