From cowan@ccil.org Fri Oct 26 20:58:43 2001 Return-Path: X-Sender: cowan@mercury.ccil.org X-Apparently-To: lojban@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-8_0_0_1); 27 Oct 2001 03:58:43 -0000 Received: (qmail 36954 invoked from network); 27 Oct 2001 03:58:43 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.142) by 10.1.1.223 with QMQP; 27 Oct 2001 03:58:43 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO mercury.ccil.org) (192.190.237.100) by mta3 with SMTP; 27 Oct 2001 03:58:43 -0000 Received: from cowan by mercury.ccil.org with local (Exim 3.12 #1 (Debian)) id 15xKca-0007tq-00 for ; Fri, 26 Oct 2001 23:58:56 -0400 Subject: Re: [lojban] a construal of lo'e & le'e In-Reply-To: from And Rosta at "Oct 26, 2001 01:19:45 pm" To: lojban@yahoogroups.com Date: Fri, 26 Oct 2001 23:58:56 -0400 (EDT) X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4ME+ PL66 (25)] MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Message-Id: X-eGroups-From: John Cowan From: John Cowan X-Yahoo-Profile: johnwcowan And Rosta scripsit: > OTOH, Lojban's lo v. loi (and le v. lei) distinction fails to capture > the distinction (which applies to intrinsically bounded individuals, > like people, but not to intrinsic masses, like water) First of all, "intrinsic mass" is not a Loglan/Lojban concept at all. Water is the mass of water droplets (or molecules), and mankind is the mass of human beings. They have exactly the same status. > between (i) a > group of things taken as a whole, and (ii) a prototype-theoretic > category, which is an individual such that members of the category > are versions of that individual. Clearly JCB explicitly denied any such distinction. To him, Mr. Monkey was just the same as Mr. Water, indifferently a group of things or a myopic singular. Likewise, "the proper study of mankind is man" uses the same two forms in L. If Donne's clod be washed away by the sea, Europe is too, and if a monkey falls from a tree, Mr. Monkey falls too. > From what I can gather, Loglan "lo" > was formerly (ii) (so "lo remna/prenu/nanmu" = "Man" (not "man")), Formerly and still is both (i) and (ii), though Loglan now has the lo/loe (loi/lo'e) contrast. > (i) Mankind has (exactly) two eyes. [false] > (ii) Man has (exactly) two eyes. [true] Hmm, in (ii) is the subject "man" or "Man"? Consider these: (iii) Man(kind) speaks six thousand languages. (true) (iv) Man speaks six thousand languages. (false) (v) A man speaks six thousand languages. (false) > Lojban {re da kanla lo remna} means (i). No, that means that at least one man has two eyes, that's all. > So how do we express 'categorial individuals', as in (ii)? -- Using > {lo'e}, I propose: {re da kanla lo'e remna}. Just so. It is characteristic of the typical remna that it has two eyes, and counterexamples are irrelevant (just like in theoretical linguistics). > And what does {le'e} mean? Well, if there is a specific group of one or > more individuals, {le} refers to each member of the group individually, > {lei} refers to them collectively, somewhat as if you ignore the boundaries > between the individuals, while {le'e} refers to the one individual you get > if you abstract away from the differences that individuate the different > individuals -- in other words, it is the archetype of the group. Exactly. I think this posting is absolutely unmatched in your postings on L semantics for its orthodoxy. -- 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