countability (was: RE: [lojban] a construal of lo'e & le'e

[And Rosta <arosta@uclan.ac.uk>]

I won't reply point by point.

I'll just note that there are two equally coherent but incompatible stories:

A.  "valsi" means "is a single word" (and so on for all countables, remna
etc.). {lu pa re ci li'u valsi} is false.

B. "valsi" means "is word(s), is wordage" (and so on for all countables, remna etc.). {lu pa re ci li'u valsi} is true. However, "selci" is exceptional
in that it DOES mean "is a single unit" (according to my reading of Lojbab)

You and pc are supporters of B. I think most other people take it for granted 
that A is the case. I seem to recall Jorge being a proponent of A.

As for me, I think A better matches the way users see things, and it
probably makes life less complicated. If we went with B, then in
order to talk about two words without relying on glorking, we'd have
to use a lujvo, valsi zei selci,  or other equivalent complex expression.
Possibly the best would be to have analogues of measurement selbri:
  This kilos ten  = this weighs 10 kilos
  This words ten = this is ten words
But this debate only arises under story B.

>>> "Bob LeChevalier (lojbab)" <lojbab@lojban.org> 10/31/01 11:14pm >>>
At 08:24 PM 10/30/01 +0000, And Rosta wrote:
>#>Given a-c, either remna doesn't mean "a portion of human", or its definition
>#>specifies what counts as one portion.
>#
>#There are no definitions of what constitutes a selci of any kind.
>
>Does the definition of remna include a definition of what counts as one
>remna?

NO gismu includes a definition of what one remna selci is.  The semantics 
of the lexicon were *intended* to be generated by usage glorking.

>If not, how do we assess whether {re da cu remna} is true?

Context.

>#>#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"?
>#
>#Given the right context, yes.
>
>Well at least you're consistent with yourself.

%^)

>#>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.
>#
>#If I see only one person, I should say "pa".  If context has be
>#interpreting what I see as two persons, I should say "re".
>
>But I thought you were saying that "remna" doesn't mean "person".

Nora's already corrected me and pointed out that remna is "human" not 
"person".

>If you
>say in English "X is a person" you are saying that X has the properties that
>individuate it as a single person. So quite clearly in English a severed 
>leg is
>not two people.

Not usually.  Nor is it one person/human.  But we can come up with an 
unusual circumstance for using the gismu anyway, though I don't think we 
would ever use an explicit number.  Maybe someone with a toe fetish might 
look at the severed leg, and say "mu remna" %^).

>  And nor is a whole person two people.

Except for Siamese twins, and possibly organ-transplant recipients.

>  And for Lojban?

"Usage will decide".

>#>#But in Lojban, all predicate words can be used interchangeably in that
>#>#manner.  It may be hard to translate some of them into English to show the
>#>#parallelism, though.
>#>
>#>I know you've said this before, and I am personally sympathetic to a
>#>certain version of your story, but I think the Populace of Lojbanistan
>#>is against you on this.
>#
>#The populace of Lojbanistan just hasn't run into the contexts where such
>#would make sense.
>
>Hardly. When people use lei/loi, it is usually because le/lo would not be
>appropriate. However, on your story the contrast with le/lo would
>evaporate, and you would expect lei/loi not to be used.

But what if a sumti is not appropriate?  Then they won't use any 
article.  And THAT is where we learn what the brivla means.  Otherwise we 
are learning one application of one sumti of that brivla.

This is not something that will be resolved in one or two sentences using a 
given word.  Think how many citations are needed to give a full meaning to 
an English word in the OED.  You can get a partial meaning from one usage, 
but no confidence that you fully understand the word without many citations.

>#>#If the only movies I have ever seen are spaghetti westerns, then my in-mind
>#>#archetype of a skina will indeed star Lee Van Cleef.
>#>
>#>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}.
>#
>#Of course.  But I thought we were arguing about le'e.
>
>In that case, I don't see why you said what you said. How was it relevant?

le'e is the one that I used "stereotype" for instead of "archetype".

lojbab