Re: [lojban] {le} in xorlo

[Jorge Llambías <jjllambias@gmail.com>]

On Tue, Apr 13, 2010 at 3:26 PM, And Rosta <and.rosta@gmail.com> wrote:
> Jorge Llambías, On 13/04/2010 14:25:
>>
>> "ko'a poi broda" means that from the set of referents of ko'a I'm only
>> taking some subset, those that satisfy broda.
>
> I can't get my head round the notion of multiple referents. To my way of
> thinking, the referent is the group; if one derives from that the predicate
> "x is a member of the group referred to", then certainly the poi/noi
> distinction makes sense. Hence to me, KOhA poi/noi is comparable to "li mu
> (ku) poi/noi" (in which perhaps more clearly the poi/noi contrast would seem
> to be vacuous).

(No "ku" after "li mu", BTW. The terminator for LI is LOhO.)

While "li mu" normally has a single referent, to me "li mu poi ..."
immediately opens up the possibility of multiple fives, which the
speaker is about to restrict in some way or another. And "so'i li mu"
is grammatical, just like "many fives" is grammatical in English.
Whether or not it is sensible to speak of that or not is a different
matter, but I don't think the poi/noi contrast will depend on what is
sensible to talk about.

> Am I several steps behind where current lojbanological thinking has got to
> on this? Is it written up anywhere?

Our Bible on this subject is:
http://www.amazon.com/Plural-Predication-Thomas-McKay/dp/0199278148
(or was rather, when the draft version was available online).
Not that the whole book was relevant to Lojban, but one or two
chapters were very illuminating.

>> But in "le broda" there is no superset of referents that I have in
>> mind, such that out of those only the ones that I'm describing as
>> broda are selected. The only referents ever in play are those of "le
>> broda", not some restriction from a superset consisting of the
>> referents of "le du".
>
> OK, this I'm with you on. Hence the vacuity of the poi/noi contrast, as with
> the "li mu" example... Or?

As with "li mu", while "poi" does not absolutely require that the
restriction be non-trivial, there are at least strong connotations
that a non-trivial restriction is in play. At least the possibility is
there, so "le du poi ..." has a potential interpretation that "le
broda" does not have.

>> (BTW, "lo gunma be lo" for "loi" is also something of a kludge, for a
>> different reason, but at this point close enough for government work.)
>
> What's the kludge? I didn't spot it...

"PA loi broda" and "PA lo gunma be lo broda" are different. (At least
with one understanding of "PA loi".)
"PA lo gunma" is ordinary quantification over groups, while "PA loi"
is quantification over the members of the group.

>> Consider "They came by bus."
[...]
>> My (tentative) contention is that this double perspective is always
>> available, and if that's the case then deciding whether a given term
>> is specific or not is arbitrary (and the decision need not be made).
>> "le" could be an indication to take the specific perspective, while
>> "lo" remains non-commital. The non-specific perspective is achieved by
>> forcing an explicit quantifier.
>
> I'm 100% in agreement on this, *except* to my thinking, you're describing
> the contrast between generic and nongeneric readings. I agree that the
> generic--nongeneric distinction is a matter of perspective (on the
> population of the universe of discourse) (but not a matter of degree).

But, if we choose the non-generic reading, then "bus" is specific,
while if we choose the generic reading it is non-specific. So if
generic-nongeneric is just perspective, then at least in some cases
specific-nonspecific becomes just a matter of perspective as well.

> I don't mean this as a quibble about terminology, and I'm happy to switch to
> whichever terms facilitate discussion, but I understand "specificity" to
> mean the meaning "some particular individual/category/concept in the
> universe of discourse" (where an individual can be a group) where the
> individual isn't identified by name. So, as it were, one uses a zo'e'e and
> then, if one wishes, adds a voi clause (or converts to a "le" phrase) or a
> noi clause to assist the addressee in narrowing down the range of possible
> 'referents' (or even identifying the 'referent').
>
> English "the" means, I think, "lo cmima be zo'e'e" with the added element of
> meaning that the addresses can identify zo'e'e. (I had a dim recollection
> that there was a BAhE for that "you know which" meaning, but apparently
> not.)

"bi'u" or "bi'unai".

>> I think you're looking at yet another dimension in which specific is
>> different from non-specific than the one I was considering. You are
>> looking at where the quantifier is with respect to illocutionary
>> force, and I'm looking at where the quantifier is with respect to
>> fixing the level of abstraction. (Or maybe I'm just hallucinating, I
>> don't feel like I have any firm grasp on specificity yet.)
>
> This pretty much fits with how things look to me too. But to me (i.e. to my
> understanding of Lojban), the level of abstraction issue doesn't have to do
> with the E/O gadri contrast...

What I'm trying to say (I think) is that the level of abstraction,
which is to some extent arbitrary, can set the stage in such a way
that the issue of specificity will be affected. But I know I'm not
saying anything very convincing about it at this point.

mu'o mi'e xorxes

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "lojban" group.
To post to this group, send email to lojban@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to lojban+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/lojban?hl=en.