Subject: RE: [lojban] a construal of lo'e & le'e

From: And Rosta <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 30 Oct 2001 20:24:35 +0000

>>> "Bob LeChevalier (lojbab)" <[email-masked]> 10/29/01 06:32pm >>>
#At 04:22 PM 10/29/01 +0000, And Rosta wrote:
#>Lojbab:
#>#The fact that the English definition is worded a particular way does not
#>#signify, except that English is constrained to make such
#>#distinctions. remna is "a portion of human" which bears the appropriate
#>#minimal set of properties associated with its various places "ka remna"
#>#(without ce'u, or with all places ce'u, I hope). But the English "is a
#>#portion of water" makes more sense than "is a water", just as "English "is
#>#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 (iirc) 
#>that it wasn't
#
#I don't know why not. A valid question is whether it is pa valsi or ci 
#valsi. In few contexts would one recognize it as pa valci.

Maybe someone with sufficient time to spare can check the list
archives, searching under keyword "wordage".

#>(b) Absolutely all usage is against it
#>
#>And it shouldn't be true, because (c) we then have no surefire way of
#>counting countables.
#
#I don't know why not. As long as it is clear that you are dealing with 
#countables in the given context (use selci to make that clear if it isn't) 
#and what the selci is for the particular concept. Obviously, with remna, 
#the selci is something approximating a whole person (we don't call an 
#amputee less-than a person), though in some contexts, a part of a single 
#person might be counted.

Use selci how?

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

#>#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". 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. And nor is a whole person two people. And for Lojban?

#>#> > > (i) Mankind has (exactly) two eyes. [false]
#>#> > > (ii) Man has (exactly) two eyes. [true]
#>#> >
#>#> > Hmm, in (ii) is the subject "man" or "Man"?
#>#>
#>#>"Man". "man" in English can't mean much besides output of what
#>#>Jackendoff calls the 'universal grinder' -- "after the traffic accident 
#>there
#>#>was man all over the pavement". Bare count nouns can't usually be generics:
#>#>"Man" is a lexically-specific exception.
#>#
#>#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.

#>I don't have a problem with that gloss of what 'stereotypical' means. Butit
#>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".
#
#There is no "the" archetype. I am a Humpty-Dumpty-ist at heart, in that 
#words mean what we think they mean, which depends on the context and on our 
#own mental experiences. All archetypes are therefore "in-mind" archetypes.

[I am too tired to express my many objections to this!]

#> I.e. you: "le archetype be lo'i broda", me: "lo pa archetype
#>be le'i broda".
#
#I cannot see where, given that archetypes depend on our personal concepts 
#of what words mean, the two alternative formulations make meaningful 
#differences.
#
#>#As has been noted in the
#>#news of late, the archetype of "crusade" is something different for Muslims
#>#than it is for Westerners (and particularly Bush, who used the word in a
#>#speech). Given that "le" is speaker's in-mind, it seemed to me that the
#>#stereotype would be the archetype used by a speaker.
#>
#>I understand (and understood). It's not foolish that in trying to deduce
#>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.
#
#I don't see how either alternative is other-than a stereotype. Your not 
#getting across to me what the difference is in English (I can see that you 
#are using different Lojban words, and usually different Lojban wordings 
#result in some kind of distinction, but I'm not seeing what it is).

Since I have addressed these matters in other messages, & since I'm
knackered, I won't repeat myself here.

#>#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 veractityof
#>{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?

--And.