From pycyn@aol.com Thu Nov 01 12:26:54 2001 Return-Path: X-Sender: Pycyn@aol.com X-Apparently-To: lojban@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-8_0_0_1); 1 Nov 2001 20:26:54 -0000 Received: (qmail 22652 invoked from network); 1 Nov 2001 20:26:54 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.27) by l9.egroups.com with QMQP; 1 Nov 2001 20:26:54 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO imo-m10.mx.aol.com) (64.12.136.165) by mta2 with SMTP; 1 Nov 2001 20:26:53 -0000 Received: from Pycyn@aol.com by imo-m10.mx.aol.com (mail_out_v31_r1.8.) id r.b4.102d23d (3924) for ; Thu, 1 Nov 2001 15:26:43 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: Date: Thu, 1 Nov 2001 15:26:42 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_b4.102d23d.29130a02_boundary" X-Mailer: AOL 6.0 for Windows US sub 10535 From: pycyn@aol.com X-Yahoo-Profile: kaliputra --part1_b4.102d23d.29130a02_boundary Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable In a message dated 11/1/2001 6:57:51 AM Central Standard Time,=20 arosta@uclan.ac.uk writes: > It was there in my original message. I know you read it, because you repl= ied=20 > to it. In that message I laid out currently mooted construals, gave some= =20 > reasons for not accepting them, and proposed a fourth. >=20 You did indeed, and I took "construal" as interpretation ( which is, indeed= ,=20 what you called the earlier cases you cited and which -- insofar as I=20 understood them -- they clearly were), that is attempts to say what "typica= l"=20 or "the typical" meant. I don't know on what basis you make that inference. Blueprints are, of=20 course, prototypes within the range of the theory, but nothing about emes &= =20 allos, types & tokens, or work & particular copy relates clearly to=20 blueprints -- several other prototype prototypes seem more obviously=20 applicable. Gee, I wish I felt that I did understand you (not to take away a warm fuzzy= ),=20 for I still don't know what kind of prototype theory you are after (except= =20 taht it is different from the one we already have -- quite unrecognized as= =20 such -- in Lojban). <#5.=A0 Does this mean that prototypes should replace typicals as the refer= ents=20 #of {lo'e} expressions?=A0 Not obviously.=A0=20 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?> I think unpacking is a good idea. Somewhere before A and B, though we=20 probably need to talk a bit about the role of gadri and what it takes to=20 "merit" them. Still, assuming for now that this is some function of=20 frequency or centrality or that it has metaphysical import (is an=20 individual), let us slog on. Yes, you say yes to A; but how do you justify that "Yes"? As you know, I=20 don't think there is much (if any -- this needs some tickling, since John=20 managed to make a point with the distinction) difference between the two an= d=20 recognize that not making an apparent reference to an individual might make= =20 the whole typical-talk clearer. On the other hand, as noted, the same migh= t=20 well be said for prototype-talk, at least in some contexts. And I, of course, see this as making not too good matters worse, since I ta= ke=20 it as insisting on the odd individuals, who have yet to be explained (and s= o=20 are capable of anything at all, ad hoc, to solve every problem whatsoever -= -=20 and thus solve nothing). The obvious answer (assuming there is a point to the question) is to make a= n=20 expressions that begins with {le}, {lo} or {la} and refers to what you have= =20 in mind, those are the usual marks of usual individuals. But as I note and= =20 you have gone to some length to note, these don't work very well for even=20 ordinary individuals. The more abstract {loi} and {lo'i} seem to work=20 better, at least sometimes getting uniqueness, though not obviously the rig= ht=20 sort of thing. Maybe this is another job for {tu'o}.=20=20 How did prototype chat move from {loi}, where it lived for a couple decades= ,=20 to {lo'e}? All of this chat, of course, depends upon a certain reading of Lojban -- an= =20 English reading and thus a largely Neo-Platonic reading (more or less takin= g=20 Plato and Aristotle to be saying basically the same thing, from different=20 points of view). Is this reading fair to Lojban (accurate for Lojban)? We= =20 are constatnly noticing things that are perfectly natural in English but th= at=20 don't work in Lojban: singular/plural and count/mass are currently running= =20 around this thread. Lojban has a different grammar from English so we=20 should expect it to have a different metaphysics (if we are Whorfians) or=20 Lojban is metaphysically neutral so it should be equally accepting of all=20 metaphysics (within some reason? -- if we are Brownians). Maybe Lojban=20 already is prototype based: this would account for some oddities (from the= =20 English point of view). In that case {ti gerku} just means "Mr. Dog (at th= e=20 highest level -- Just Dog Its Own Self) versions there" and {levi gerku cu= =20 bunre} (the exact function of {cu} is somehat obscured here) means "Mr. Do= g=20 overlaps Mr. Brown there" Note that singular/plural IS irrelevant and so i= s=20 count/mass (may consequentially). It turns out that most familiar metaphysics are prototype theories and so,= =20 given one reading of a language, we can convert it into any of the others i= n=20 fairly uniform ways. The trick is trying to talk about two theories at onc= e,=20 because the fundamentlas of one theory do not -- of course -- fit naturally= =20 into the other. On the other hand, anything that can be done in one theory= =20 can be done in the other -- and at about the same level of difficulty (or=20 ease). As Harry Hoijer used to say when Whorfianism go to rife in his clas= s=20 on it, "Any way you slice it, it's still baloney."=20=20 Now, what is it that Mr Prototype theory is supposed to do and how is it=20 supposed to do it? Great, now we can translate that into item&property and= =20 that into Lojban as we understand it and, poof!, we have what we need. (Or= =20 we can do Mr. Prototype Lojban and get there directly). --part1_b4.102d23d.29130a02_boundary Content-Type: text/html; charset="ISO-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable In a message dated 11/1/2001 6:57:51 AM Central Standard Time, arosta@ucl= an.ac.uk writes:

It was there in my origin= al message. I know you read it, because you replied=20
to it. In that message I laid out currently mooted construals, gave som= e=20
reasons for not accepting them, and proposed a fourth.

You did indeed, and I took "construal" as interpretation ( which is, in= deed, what you called the earlier cases you cited and which -- insofa= r as I understood them -- they clearly were), that is attempts to say what = "typical" or "the typical" meant.

<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.>

I don't know on what basis you make that inference. Blueprints ar= e, of course, prototypes within the range of the theory, but nothing about = emes & allos, types & tokens, or work & particular copy relates= clearly to blueprints -- several other prototype prototypes seem more obvi= ously applicable.

<I'm getting this rare but pleasant warm feeling of having been unde= rstood
by you.... Particularly the last sentence.>

Gee, I wish I felt that I did understand you (not to take away a warm f= uzzy), for I still don't know what kind of prototype theory you are after (= except taht it is different from the one we already have -- quite unrecogni= zed as such -- in Lojban).

<#5.=A0 Does this mean that prototypes should replace typicals as th= e referents=20
#of {lo'e} expressions?=A0 Not obviously.=A0=20

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?>

I think unpacking is a good idea. Somewhere before A and B, thoug= h we probably need to talk a bit about the role of gadri and what it takes = to "merit" them. Still, assuming for now that this is some function o= f frequency or centrality or that it has metaphysical import (is an individ= ual), let us slog on.

<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.>

Yes, you say yes to A; but how do you justify that "Yes"? As you = know, I don't think there is much (if any -- this needs some tickling, sinc= e John managed to make a point with the distinction) difference between the= two and recognize that not making an apparent reference to an individual m= ight make the whole typical-talk clearer. On the other hand, as noted= , the same might well be said for prototype-talk, at least in some co= ntexts.

<Finally, as for C, I think it would be to the benefit of the langua= ge if
lo'e/le'e expressed prototypes (categorial individuals, myopic singular= s),
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=20
of any argument about C.>

And I, of course, see this as making not too good matters worse, since = I take it as insisting on the odd individuals, who have yet to be explained= (and so are capable of anything at all, ad hoc, to solve every problem wha= tsoever -- and thus solve nothing).

<Something that is ordinarily conceptualized as an individual and ex= pressed=20
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 ordina= rily
conceptualized as a category and expressed as a selbri and reconceptual= ize
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 whe= ther
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 on= e
(for {me}).>

The obvious answer (assuming there is a point to the question) is to ma= ke an expressions that begins with {le}, {lo} or {la} and refers to what yo= u have in mind, those are the usual marks of usual individuals. But a= s I note and you have gone to some length to note, these don't work very we= ll for even ordinary individuals. The more abstract {loi} and {lo'i} = seem to work better, at least sometimes getting uniqueness, though not obvi= ously the right sort of thing. Maybe this is another job for {t= u'o}.

How did prototype chat move from {loi}, where it lived for a couple dec= ades, to {lo'e}?

All of this chat, of course, depends upon a certain reading of Lojban -= - an English reading and thus a largely Neo-Platonic reading (more or less = taking Plato and Aristotle to be saying basically the same thing, from diff= erent points of view). Is this reading fair to Lojban (accurate for L= ojban)? We are constatnly noticing things that are perfectly natural = in English but that don't work in Lojban: singular/plural and count/mass ar= e currently running around this thread. Lojban has a different gramma= r from English so we should expect it to have a different metaphysics= (if we are Whorfians) or Lojban is metaphysically neutral so it should be = equally accepting of all metaphysics (within some reason? -- if we are Brow= nians). Maybe Lojban already is prototype based: this would account f= or some oddities (from the English point of view). In that case {ti g= erku} just means "Mr. Dog (at the highest level -- Just Dog Its Own Self) v= ersions there" and {levi gerku cu bunre} (the exact function of= {cu} is somehat obscured here) means "Mr. Dog overlaps Mr. Brown there" &n= bsp;Note that singular/plural IS irrelevant and so is count/mass (may conse= quentially).
It turns out that most familiar metaphysics are prototype theories and = so, given one reading of a language, we can convert it into any of the othe= rs in fairly uniform ways. The trick is trying to talk about two theo= ries at once, because the fundamentlas of one theory do not -- of course --= fit naturally into the other. On the other hand, anything that can b= e done in one theory can be done in the other -- and at about the same leve= l of difficulty (or ease). As Harry Hoijer used to say when Whorfiani= sm go to rife in his class on it, "Any way you slice it, it's still baloney= ."
Now, what is it that Mr Prototype theory is supposed to do and how is i= t supposed to do it? Great, now we can translate that into item&propert= y and that into Lojban as we understand it and, poof!, we have what we need= . (Or we can do Mr. Prototype Lojban and get there directly).

--part1_b4.102d23d.29130a02_boundary--