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

From: And Rosta <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 01 Nov 2001 13:07:39 +0000

>>> <[email-masked]> 11/01/01 01:25am >>>
[email-masked] writes:
#> First of all, hang on: if what you're saying is addressed to me, then I had 
#> explicitly
#> said to John that I don't think lo'e should be understood in terms of 
#> typicality
#> or averageness -- at least not definitionally.
#
#aHAH! Though I should have known it from past performance, I did 
#entirely miss that what And was about was not explaining {lo'e} but rather 
#proposing an entirely new use for {lo'e}, which he seems to think is not 
#presently being adequately -- or appropriately -- employed. Thus, all of my 
#comments about prototype theory not doing a good job of capturing 
#typicality or averageness were irrelevant to his arguments(I wish And had 
#noted that earlier; it might have shortened the time before I saw what he 
#was about).  

It was there in my original message. I know you read it, because you replied 
to it. In that message I laid out currently mooted construals, gave some 
reasons for not accepting them, and proposed a fourth.

#So, "it doesn't explain 'typical'" is out; what is left?
#
#1. Could Lojban advantageously use prototype theory? Yes. there are a 
#variety of theoretical and even practical questions for which some version 
#of other of prototype theory seems the most illumination approach: type-
#token, eme-allo, work and particular copy, to cite three that have come up 
#over the years in Lojban.

I infer from this that you think of prototypes as blueprints. That is, the
thing that you describe as a "prototype" is something that could also
be described as a blueprint.

#2. Does Lojban already have the means to deal with these? Yes and no. It 
#could easily create predicates that would cover these cases (a few are even 
#around, I think, from previous efforts) and thus talk about the problem 
#pretty clearly. This has not been done systematically in Lojban. And --and 
#I take this to be And's point -- there is no consistent way to display the 
#results of this discussion when it is relevant: no way to show -- when it is 
#important -- whether we are talking about the highest prototype letter a or 
#the particular smudge of ink at this point on this page -- or any of the 
#prototypes (or versions, depending) in between. And, of course, no way to 
#avoid making the distinction when it doesn't make a difference.

I'm getting this rare but pleasant warm feeling of having been understood
by you.... Particularly the last sentence.

#3. Is there a clear prototype theory? Wellll. As such things 
#(philosophical or linguistic theories) go, several pretty clear ones, all 
#similar enough to handle most of the same problems similarly, different 
#enough to allow arguments about hard cases.
#
#4. Does prototype theory require a new ontology? Not necessarily. Most say 
#something vaguely like what And has (even more vaguely) presented, but some 
#claim this is merely a convenience and then (try to?) unpack it in terms of 
#various machines of linguistics or logic (finite state automata, 
#transformations, Adjukeiwicz cancellation grammars, ....), 

I'll take your word for it mate ;-)

#whiles others really seem to believe the stuff they say (though what they say is 
#rarely blatantly self-contradictory). 
#
#5. Does this mean that prototypes should replace typicals as the referents 
#of {lo'e} expressions? Not obviously.  

I think this needs to be unpicked:

A. Do prototypes merit gadri?
B. Do typicals merit gadri?
C. What do lo'e/le'e mean?

Obviously I say Yes to A. As for B, I'm all in favour of being able to talk
about the average chicagoan and her 7.1 sexual partners, but before
accepting that there should be gadri for this purpose, I would like to
see how the distinction between what John called "typical properties
of broda" versus "properties of the typical broda" is expressed.

Finally, as for C, I think it would be to the benefit of the language if
lo'e/le'e expressed prototypes (categorial individuals, myopic singulars),
but it's not something we can sensibly argue about, and experimental
cmavo loi'e and lei'e should keep happy whoever is on the losing end 
of any argument about C.

#On the one hand, it is not clear that 
#prototypes are nearly as common as typicals as points we want to make or 
#distinctions that cause problems. Further, it is not clear that gadri are 
#the appropriate way to make prototype/version distinctions: these are 
#relative distinctions after all, not absolute ones (like genus/species 
#outside biological taxonomy), with a series of prototypes/versions between 
#top and bottom (though usually transitively settled, so that this smudge on 
#this page is a version of the letter a (as well as of my a's, script a's, 
#italic a's ....). Of course, there is the other side; that, since typicals 
#are not really individuals, they should not be represented by gadri at all.  
#But much the same can be said about several versions of prototypes.
#In short, now that I understand what And is about, I am no closer to thinking 
#he has made his case than I was before, I just know what the case is.

Something that is ordinarily conceptualized as an individual and expressed 
as a sumti can be reconceptualized as a category and expressed as
a selbri by means of {me}. Now, how to we take something that is ordinarily
conceptualized as a category and expressed as a selbri and reconceptualize
it as an individual and express it as a sumti? The usual criterion for
deciding whether something is ordinarily conceptualized and expressed
as an individual or as a category is whether there is only one X or whether
there are many X. The reconceptualization then involves seeing only
one X instead of many (for lo'e), and seeking many X instead of just one
(for {me}).

To me this calls for a gadri both in its very nature and because it makes
all other gadri inappropriate.

--And.