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

From: "Bob LeChevalier (lojbab)" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 31 Oct 2001 19:29:53 -0500

At 04:02 PM 10/31/01 +0000, And Rosta wrote:
> >>> <[email-masked]> 10/31/01 01:20am >>>
>#<Right. A normal-zo'e x1 in main bridi cannot be elided. Where normal-zo'e
>#= zo'e with its normal meaning.>
>#
>#Since the normal meaning of {zo'e} (if that locution has any sense at 
>all) is
>#"the obvious thing," the observative use seem perfectly normal. Context 
>may
>#force the "currently observed" meaning or some other, just as it always does.
>
>But in this case we do not need to say that there is any observative
>convention for elided x1 of main bridi. We can say simply that overt and
>covert/elided zo'e mean "the obvious thing" -- and of course sometimes
>(and perhaps the default in the absence of prior textual context) the
>obvious thing will be something in the immediate environment of the
>discourse.

We could say that, but it would be long-winded and verbally 
abstruse. (Unlike you, we try to keep the English simple even if it makes 
the Lojban complex. %^) So we say it is an "observative", which most 
people can glork in English to get approximately the desired meaning.

>#As for having
>#their own gadri, they may well have their own predicates but it remains 
>to be
>#shown that there is any need for a special gadri for prototypes: why not 
>just
>#{lo prototype of}?
>
>{lo pa prototype of lo'i broda} or {lo pa prototype of tu'o du'u ce'u 
>broda}, I
>suppose. Well, the answer to "Why not just that" is the frequent one: because
>it's too verbose.

See what I mean? You want things to be non-verbose in Lojban, but your 
explanations for them are extremely verbose in English, and not 
well-motivated except by this desire to say whatever it is "briefly" in 
Lojban (with no evidence that anyone but you even wants to say that 
particular thing that must be said so verbosely in English).

Personally, I think that prototypes are si'o broda, but we don't seem to 
agree on what si'o means, so that may offer us no advance. The (set of) 
properties that must be "similar" in order for us to identify something as 
matching the prototype are ka broda. But everyone has problems with my 
understanding of ka %^) (And MAYBE, if I understand this version/prototype 
distinction, I would associate that distinction with the distinction 
between du'u and either si'o or ka). But I cannot define these differences 
fully according to some particular semantic theory, because that would 
require that I identify the Lojban design as corresponding to that 
particular semantic theory.

But Lojban does NOT necessarily represent some semantic theory, and need 
not have gadri assigned to make all possible semantic theories represented 
"non-verbosely". You seem to want YOUR semantic theories to be non-verbose 
in Lojban, which of course would favor them rather than being 
metaphysically neutral.

>It gives {le} and {lei} an unfair advantage, and nobody's
>going to bother saying {lo pa prototype of tu'o du'u ce'u broda}.

This comes of trying to too closely tie le and lei to some theory that is 
different from yours, so that yours cannot be represented by the same 
thing. If we leave the semantic theories rather looser, then you can mean 
what you want by lo'e, and Jorge can mean what he wants, and I can mean 
what I want, and only if we do not communicate do we realize there is a 
problem because of our incompatible theories. (It is theoretically 
possible of course that the same text could be plausible according to three 
entirely different semantic theories, and yet really mean three different 
things such that apparent communication is really miscommunication. Thus 
if one wants to be SURE of clarity, one must be long-winded (and even then 
can't really be sure - infinite verbosity being required).

>Also, {lo'e}
>and {le'e} are effectively spare, because they're poorly understood, little
>used and in little demand,

This is because the language as a whole is still little used. One jorge (a 
nonce gismu representing a measureable unit of lojban usage %^) is not a 
lot of usage. 100 jorge are a fair amount of usage, and will likely start 
to significantly develop some of the lesser-used areas of the 
language. 10000 jorge will probably resolve many of the questions, 
probably more easily than 10000 jorge of English would resolve English 
semantics questions.

>and I opine that my construal at one and the
>same time is both pretty compatible with the official line and turns them into
>gadri that would be very useful and often used (by those with a taste for
>them).

Maybe if you actually used them in accordance with your theory, we might 
see this. I cannot ascribe usefulness to a verbose English explication of 
what a Lojban word might mean.

>Responding, rather than replying, I think part of the problem is that you 
>are a
>philosopher rather than a linguist. So our exchange can be caricatured as:
>
>LINGUIST: X occurs in language and is useful in them. Therefore let us have
>X in Lojban.
>PHILOSOPHER: But X makes no sense. Therefore let us not have X in
>Lojban.
>LINGUIST: It makes enough sense for it to be useful in linguistic expression,
>and therefore it merits a place in Lojban. The philosophical investigation of
>it can follow.
>PHILOSOPHER: Nothing so imperfectly (incoherently and incompletely)
>understood merits a place in Lojban.

Umm, using that conversation, I and other glorkjunkies are the "linguists", 
and YOU are the philosopher.

That various theorists find some version of prototype theory useful to 
describe language semantics, where such theories are incomplete and/or 
imperfect, does not make those prototypes "used" in the language.

>In fact, the actual debate is not about meriting a place in Lojban but
>about meriting a place in Lojban as a *gadri*.

Which is even more specific and therefore even more demanding in its 
requirements. We don't provide gadri for any other theories of 
language. The ones we have are loosely defined so that people with 
different theories or even no theory at all can communicate. Those who 
find that unacceptable have the obligation (to themselves if no one else) 
to come up with the long-winded form that they want to use the short gadri 
for. Then in my opinion, they should just use the gadri to mean that, and 
see if anyone understands. If not, the theory fails.

>You want me to explain what the capital letter and odd syntax mean. The
>best I can do is give you an example and (in vain) hope you can accept
>that in principle it could be analogized from even if in practise that might
>be difficult in some cases. Take the predicate cuktrxamleta, "is a textual
>version of the play Hamlet". Well then, lo'e cuktrxamleta refers to the
>play Hamlet. It is synonymous with the English word _Hamlet_.

Is the Klingon _Hamlet_ lo'e cuktrxamleta? How about the German one? How 
about a simplified English version that uses modern words in places of 
Shakespeare's archaisms? If all these different Hamlet's are lo'e 
cuktrxamleta, then lo'e has not a singular referent.

Now let's try Homer's _Odyssey_? Is an English version, possibly in prose, 
of _The Odyssey_, lo'e cuktrodisi. Yet we call it _The Odysssey_.

>#People do need to brush up on their Grice a bit in these discussions, rather
>#than picking examples out of the blue and insisting that they show something
>#"on certain construals". What do they mean in the context provided or in 
>the
>#normal context?
>
>I don't know which examples you mean. The "on certain construals" move is
>a normal gambit among linguists; it is assumed in such cases that one's
>interlocutor will find it reasonably easy to cast around in their mind for a
>context that makes the construal plausible. If you cast around and can't
>find such a context it is reasonable to ask for one.

I think the problem is that one cannot reach a conclusion merely by finding 
*A* construal or context. You have to assert not merely plausible, but 
"normal" or I would prefer
"typical" (which really begs the question when we are arguing the meaning 
of "lo'e" %^).

pei lo'e mezo lo'e

lojbab
--
lojbab [email-masked]
Bob LeChevalier, President, The Logical Language Group, Inc.
2904 Beau Lane, Fairfax VA 22031-1303 USA 703-385-0273
Artificial language Loglan/Lojban: http://www.lojban.org