From pycyn@aol.com Mon Oct 29 13:20:08 2001 Return-Path: X-Sender: Pycyn@aol.com X-Apparently-To: lojban@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-8_0_0_1); 29 Oct 2001 21:20:08 -0000 Received: (qmail 71861 invoked from network); 29 Oct 2001 21:20:07 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.26) by l10.egroups.com with QMQP; 29 Oct 2001 21:20:07 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO imo-m06.mx.aol.com) (64.12.136.161) by mta1 with SMTP; 29 Oct 2001 21:20:07 -0000 Received: from Pycyn@aol.com by imo-m06.mx.aol.com (mail_out_v31_r1.8.) id r.15b.335258b (4552) for ; Mon, 29 Oct 2001 16:20:03 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <15b.335258b.290f2203@aol.com> Date: Mon, 29 Oct 2001 16:20:03 EST Subject: Re: [lojban] a construal of lo'e & le'e To: lojban@yahoogroups.com MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="part1_15b.335258b.290f2203_boundary" X-Mailer: AOL 6.0 for Windows US sub 10535 From: pycyn@aol.com X-Yahoo-Profile: kaliputra --part1_15b.335258b.290f2203_boundary Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable In a message dated 10/29/2001 10:14:13 AM Central Standard Time,=20 arosta@uclan.ac.uk writes: > #The fact that the English definition is worded a particular way does not= =20 > #signify, except that English is constrained to make such=20 > #distinctions. remna is "a portion of human" which bears the appropriate= =20 > #minimal set of properties associated with its various places "ka remna"= =20 > #(without ce'u, or with all places ce'u, I hope). But the English "is a= =20 > #portion of water" makes more sense than "is a water", just as "English "= is=20 > #a human" makes more sense than "is a portion of human". >=20 > This is not true, because: >=20 > (a) A fairly recent debate about "lu pa re ci li'u cu valsi" agreed (iirc= )=20 > that > it wasn't > (b) Absolutely all usage is against it >=20 > And it shouldn't be true, because (c) we then have no surefire way of > counting countables. >=20 > Given a-c, either remna doesn't mean "a portion of human", or its definit= ion > specifies what counts as one portion. >=20 > #Example, also invoking observatives. If I run across a body part, I mig= ht=20 > #indeed use the observative "remna", even though all I have seen is a par= t=20 > #of a human. >=20 > And, more crucially, might you also say "mi viska pa remna"? And if so, > could you also say "mi viska re remna", when you see just the one severed >=20 I have to pass on a) becauese I don't remember -- and cannot find -- the=20 discussion, though I think I can see from here how it must have gone, and a= m=20 tempted to say "yes" to it. As to b), the most that can be said about usage= =20 is that the occasional person who had gotten wrapped up in mass/count tende= d=20 to treat the two differently as did malglicists, but that ordinarily they=20 seem to be treated about the same, unless you can dig up some early stuff=20 directly involved in the "universal grinder" end of the "meaning of {loi}=20 (Loglan {lo})." That is, as usual, usage is not very illuminating. And, a= s=20 for c), well, we don't. We have ones that work most of the time, but don't= =20 decide the hard cases (when the universe replicates at each tick on all the= =20 potential alternatives in the state description, are the continuers of me i= n=20 all these worlds the same or different? O gracious, here come prototype=20 categories again!)=20=20 For the leg in the road, saying {re remna} would be permissible semanticall= y=20 but not Griceanly, just as saying {re djacu} of a puddle. You can have mor= e=20 fun (historically) with two legs which have not been identified as to sourc= e=20 -- or a puddle of mercury. <#>O good. Note that most prevailing interpretations of lo'e (i.e. the best= =20 #>guesses #>of people who have ventured to make a guess) are unorthodox, and #>that "le'e" does NOT mean "the stereotypical"; the mahoste is wrong. # #No it isn't.=A0 I just had a different understanding of the meaning of=20 #stereotypical than you apparently to.=A0 To me, "stereotypical"~=3D"archet= ype",=20 #but we use the former when we wish to note the subjectivity of what=20 #constitutes the archetype from vary viewpoints.=A0=20 I don't have a problem with that gloss of what 'stereotypical' means. But i= t is not what {le'e} should mean. You want {le'e} to mean "a certain in-mind archetype of lo'i broda", while I say it should mean "the archetype of le'i broda". I.e. you: "le archetype be lo'i broda", me: "lo pa archetype be le'i broda".> I see your point, but I think that the original point is that both {lo'e} a= nd=20 {le'e} are subjective, they differ in that the class of which they are=20 archetypes/stereotypes/prototypes are in one case natural, in the other als= o=20 subjectively chosen. Types are are in your head. Non sequitur, being an archetype is just a selection -- mine, whether I get= =20 at it by {le} or {lo} is irrrelevant, since there is only one. Challenge away, but in the context, you lose. =20 --part1_15b.335258b.290f2203_boundary Content-Type: text/html; charset="ISO-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable In a message dated 10/29/2001 10:14:13 AM Central Standard Time, arosta@u= clan.ac.uk writes:



#The fact that the Englis= h definition is worded a particular way does not=20
#signify, except that English is constrained to make such=20
#distinctions.  remna is "a portion of human" which bears the appr= opriate=20
#minimal set of properties associated with its various places "ka remna= "=20
#(without ce'u, or with all places ce'u, I hope).  But the English= "is a=20
#portion of water" makes more sense than "is a water", just as "English= "is=20
#a human" makes more sense than "is a portion of human".

This is not true, because:

(a) A fairly recent debate about "lu pa re ci li'u cu valsi" agreed (ii= rc) that
it wasn't
(b) Absolutely all usage is against it

And it shouldn't be true, because (c) we then have no surefire way of
counting countables.

Given a-c, either remna doesn't mean "a portion of human", or its defin= ition
specifies what counts as one portion.

#Example, also invoking observatives.  If I run across a body part= , I might=20
#indeed use the observative "remna", even though all I have seen is a p= art=20
#of a human.

And, more crucially, might you also say "mi viska pa remna"? And if so,
could you also say "mi viska re remna", when you see just the one sever= ed
leg, or when you see just one person.




I have to pass on a) becauese I don't remember -- and cannot find -- th= e discussion, though I think I can see from here how it must have gone, and= am tempted to say "yes" to it. As to b), the most that can be said about u= sage is that the occasional person who had gotten wrapped up in mass/count = tended to treat the two differently as did malglicists, but that ordinarily= they seem to be treated about the same, unless you can dig up some early s= tuff directly involved in the "universal grinder" end of the "meaning of {l= oi} (Loglan {lo})."  That is, as usual, usage is not very illuminating= .  And, as for c), well, we don't.  We have ones that work most o= f the time, but don't decide the hard cases (when the universe replicates a= t each tick on all the potential alternatives in the state description, are= the continuers of me in all these worlds the same or different?  O gr= acious, here come prototype categories again!)  
For the leg in the road, saying {re remna} would be permissible semanti= cally but not Griceanly, just as saying {re djacu} of a puddle.  You c= an have more fun (historically) with two legs which have not been identifie= d as to source -- or a puddle of mercury.

<#>O good. Note that most prevailing interpretations of lo'e (i.e= . the best=20
#>guesses
#>of people who have ventured to make a guess) are unorthodox, and
#>that "le'e" does NOT mean "the stereotypical"; the mahoste is wron= g.
#
#No it isn't.=A0 I just had a different understanding of the meaning of= =20
#stereotypical than you apparently to.=A0 To me, "stereotypical"~=3D"ar= chetype",=20
#but we use the former when we wish to note the subjectivity of what=20
#constitutes the archetype from vary viewpoints.=A0=20

I don't have a problem with that gloss of what 'stereotypical' means. B= ut it
is not what {le'e} should mean. You want {le'e} to mean "a certain in-m= ind
archetype of lo'i broda", while I say it should mean "the archetype of
le'i broda". I.e. you: "le archetype be lo'i broda", me: "lo pa archety= pe
be le'i broda".>

I see your point, but I think that the original point is that both {lo'= e} and {le'e} are subjective, they differ in that the class of which they a= re archetypes/stereotypes/prototypes are in one case natural, in the other = also subjectively chosen.  Types are are in your head.

<I understand (and understood). It's not foolish that in trying to d= educe
the meaning of {le'e} you'd come up with "le archetype be lo'i broda".
However, I was arguing that it should be "lo pa archetype be le'i broda= ".
When John said I was being ultra-orthodox, I then pointed out that that
meant the mahoste was wrong.>

Non sequitur, being an archetype is just a selection -- mine, whether I= get at it by {le} or {lo} is irrrelevant, since there is only one.

<Fair enough, but I would be as entitled to challenge the veracity o= f
{lo'e skina stars Lee Van Cleef} as I would be to challenge the veracti= ty of
{ro skina stars Lee Van Cleef}.>

Challenge away, but in the context, you lose.

=20
--part1_15b.335258b.290f2203_boundary--