From arosta@uclan.ac.uk Tue Oct 30 12:58:54 2001 Return-Path: X-Sender: arosta@uclan.ac.uk X-Apparently-To: lojban@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-8_0_0_1); 30 Oct 2001 20:58:53 -0000 Received: (qmail 57103 invoked from network); 30 Oct 2001 20:58:53 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.26) by m8.onelist.org with QMQP; 30 Oct 2001 20:58:53 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO com1.uclan.ac.uk) (193.61.255.3) by mta1 with SMTP; 30 Oct 2001 20:58:53 -0000 Received: from gwise-gw1.uclan.ac.uk by com1.uclan.ac.uk with SMTP (Mailer); Tue, 30 Oct 2001 20:35:27 +0000 Received: from DI1-Message_Server by gwise-gw1.uclan.ac.uk with Novell_GroupWise; Tue, 30 Oct 2001 21:09:57 +0000 Message-Id: X-Mailer: Novell GroupWise 5.5.2 Date: Tue, 30 Oct 2001 21:09:17 +0000 To: pycyn , lojban Subject: Re: [lojban] observatives & a construal of lo'e & le'e Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Disposition: inline From: And Rosta X-Yahoo-Profile: andjamin >>> 10/29/01 09:19pm >>> arosta@uclan.ac.uk writes: #> in Lojban a sequence #> of one or more sumti can count as a sentence. # #Technically not; every sentence must contain a bridi tail. But such a stri= ng=20 #could be a fragment. I meant "count as a macrosyntagm", a licit maximal syntactic unit. (But=20 actually that wouldn't work, because lojban syntactic units go up to=20 text level.) # # #Even then the sumti-observative seems to ahve been rejected as too unclear= =20 #(i.e., how to tell it from a fragment or the beginning of a longer -- thou= gh=20 #slowly emitted -- sentence ("...derry.") I don't have my loglan files here, so can't check. # # #No, observatives are possible (actual, even). It just is that the role of= =20 #such elided {zo'e} is restricted to objects at the center of one's=20 #observation. Right. A normal-zo'e x1 in main bridi cannot be elided. Where normal-zo'e =3D zo'e with its normal meaning. # # #Well, it is not a sentence, and I suspect a bit of subconscious punning to= =20 #get to this reading (it was surely present when the idea was first present= ed=20 #-- so far as I know -- in '76 or so).=20=20 I don't understand the punning. #Oddly, the object of observation is always {le} by definition, so the pun = fails. "lo! the dog" =3D "le gerku is here" "lo! a dog" =3D "here, da gerku" For the latter, the object of observation is not a dog but a soa of there b= eing a dog. # # #Yes, that mistake, too; even xorxes can't set up a new canon for a fixed t= erm. # #<, the whole=20 #point of {tu'a} is to prevent the quantifier on -- or one derived from -- = the=20 #sumti from rising to the upper level, so of course the quantifier goes on = the=20 #{le nu ... co'e} that {tu'a} indicates. Where has this been doubted?=20=20 # #I don't remember this ever having been the whole or even the partial #point of tu'a. Tu'a marks so-called sumti-raising, and I don't recall the= =20 #quantification either having been settled or much discussed. My memory #may be unreliable, though.> # #Well, I claim that MY memory is non-veridical, so I won't dispute on what = has=20 #or has not been said. Somethings are so obvious as not to need mentioning= =20 #even here (until the mention is required, of course). The only logically= =20 #interesting feature of subject raising (and, indeed, almost the only=20 #linguistically interesting one, aside from cooccurrence restrictions) is t= hat=20 #it gives a surface structure (in English and most languages -- but NOT in= =20 #Lojban) that appears to allow quantifications that are in fact illegitimat= e=20 #and the point of reconstructing the invisible clause is to explain why the= =20 #quantification is illegitimate.=20=20 None of this is so obvious as to not need mentioning. Based on my time in Lojbanistan I'd say that the main point of sumti-raising is to be briefer o= r vaguer than would be the case if the full bridi were used in stead of the raised sumti.=20 This argument is a bit of waste of time, though. I think tu'a is more usefu= l if it blocks the usual quantification rules, so the only thing we disagree = about is whether this makes it exceptional. # # #I can and do. First, as you know, I do not believe there is a rule # of the superficial and erratic kind that you seem to be appealing to here= ,=20 #from which a raised subject is an exception. Secondly, in the real rule o= f=20 #which yours is a parody (and, but for the erratic element, in yours too), = the=20 #sumti in {tu'a sumti} does not occur in the bridi in which {tu'a sumti} #o= ccurs. Thirdly, that sumti is bound in the bridi in which it does occur. I don't know if this is discussed in the Refgram. If there's no documentati= on anywhere, then it's hard to settle this thing. I say what I say based on=20 a decade of relatively attentive reading of this list, but even if in any verifiable sense I am correct, the consensus I report is destroyed by your dissent, and the new situation is that there is no consensus. So I'll just note that this is an unresolved issue that can be left until t= he Elephant is running. # #I didn't say it couldn't be done; I just said that we have lost a natural = way=20 #of doing it somewhere along the line. As for making a lujvo, people disli= ke=20 #mine as much as my translations and a lujvo does not seem the appropriate = way=20 #to go here anyhow. # #<#Well, it will fail -- at least to be useful -- if it cannot be given som= e=20 ##meaningful content. Historically, it has been used as a magic wand to co= ver=20 ##cases that could not be made to fit otherwise=20=20 # #you're talking about {lo'e}, I take it. Or prototype theory?> # #Prototype theory.(this version of {lo'e} a fortiori). # # # #Still lacking is any explanation of what this might conceivably mean that = is=20 #different from either bad statistics or worse Platonism. I suppose bad=20 #Platonism is a possible ontoology, but it doesn't help here, because, as=20 #noted, the prototype has very few properties in common with the versions a= nd=20 #so fails to do its job. Alternate ontologies are welcome, but tey ought n= ot=20 #be brought in to solve a problem they in fact make worse. I have done my best to explain.=20 So you think prototype theory is bad statistics or worse Platonism: so be i= t, but there are plenty of people who don't agree with you, or who nonetheless find it valuable; they should not be denied their gadri. # # #Whoa! You can (or could in certain situations) see, touch and smell ME, b= ut=20 #I am not a me prototype in any interesting sense.=20=20 Yes, you are.=20 #I suppose, we are back now=20 #to st-worms and temporal (or maybe even some kinds of spatial) cross=20 #sections.=20=20 among other sorts of version, yes #That works for an individual, but not for a natural kind (let=20 #alone a {le} group). This is not coming across as an ontology now, so much= as=20 #a verbal formula that covers several ontologies that inherently have nothi= ng=20 #to do with one another. That judgment may turn out to be wrong (see=20 #Lesniewski's mereology), but it sure needs a lot of work to make it plausi= ble. I think you're setting unreasonably high philosophical standards here.=20 Is there a linguistic case for prototype-theoretic gadri? Yes. Are their lo= gical properties well-understood or well-defined? No. Is their conceptual essence adequately understood? Yes. #<#-- in which case the question of connection -- which may not be=20 ##important in the present sense -- remains unsolved,=20 # #I don't know what that question is.> # #What is the relation between the prototype and the version by virtue of wh= ich=20 #the version is a version of the prototype, rather than something else. Ah. Resemblance, is the usual answer. #<#and of course means that=20 ##the individual has properties that none of its versions has and=20 #conversely).=20=20 # #I think this is held (by prototype theorists) to not be the case. I would= =20 #favour #going along with that view in the interpretation of {lo'e broda}, and taki= ng #{lo'e/tu'o du'u ce'u broda} to be the Platonic essence.> # #Yes, but HOW would they do it?=20=20 sorry -- do what? #I take {lo'e [or whatever] du'u ce'u broda}=20 #to be a property, and thus not the right category to be an Ideal or a=20 #prototype or... Not the right category to be a prototype. I'm not sure enough what an Ideal is, so can't suggest how to refer to it. # # #I am sure we can come of with an expression meaning "is a/the prototype of= "=20 #to express this ontology, I'm trying to find out just how this helps expla= in=20 #a gadri. Byron on Coleridge: "explaining metaphysics to the nation, how I= =20 #wish he'd explain his explanation." I have a pretty clear idea what {lo'e= =20 #cinfo} means, I have rather less of what a prototypical category of lion i= s. As I say, I've done my best to explain. There's also a vast literature whic= h you may or may not know. Either way, let's assume you know the literature but still think the theory's crap -- well, then, lots of people don't, and they= have language rights too! I am unsure whether "we can come of with an expression meaning "is a/the=20 prototype of" to express this ontology". How do we avoid quantification and treat a category as an individual? That's where, as I see it, the gadri is = needed. Someone prototype-theory-minded doesn't want to be faffing about choosing among different quantifiers etc. when they want to refer to Lion. # #Oh, it probably does, but I am not sure that a default was specified=20 #(presumably {pa}, but I wouldn't be surprised at anything). # # # #I agree, but, on the other hand, since it won't in the end make a differen= ce,=20 #take whatever you like (well, {lo'i} is clearly a mistake as is any number= =20 #but 1). I like {tu'o} for its in-your-face nose-thumbing and dislike {lo'= e}=20 #because it is obscure and possibbly wrong. # # # #Well, I don't like it to be too easy to move into imaginary realms -- I=20 #certainly want a least one major flag up when I move. It does seem to me= =20 #that Lojban is more than adequately equpped -- though not yet very well=20 #trained -- for making such moves easily and visibly. I am less sure about= =20 #versions of an imaginary postman, however. This is fair enough: you wish for indicators of shifting realms and ontolog= ies. But the lojbanic way is to make such things optional. --And.