From cowan@ccil.org Sun Oct 28 15:41:40 2001 Return-Path: X-Sender: cowan@mercury.ccil.org X-Apparently-To: lojban@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-8_0_0_1); 28 Oct 2001 23:41:39 -0000 Received: (qmail 81336 invoked from network); 28 Oct 2001 23:41:38 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.27) by 10.1.1.223 with QMQP; 28 Oct 2001 23:41:38 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO mercury.ccil.org) (192.190.237.100) by mta2 with SMTP; 28 Oct 2001 23:41:38 -0000 Received: from cowan by mercury.ccil.org with local (Exim 3.12 #1 (Debian)) id 15xzYp-0006hp-00 for ; Sun, 28 Oct 2001 18:41:47 -0500 Subject: Re: [lojban] a construal of lo'e & le'e In-Reply-To: from And Rosta at "Oct 28, 2001 07:10:13 pm" To: lojban@yahoogroups.com Date: Sun, 28 Oct 2001 18:41:47 -0500 (EST) 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: > 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