From lojban@lojban.org Thu Nov 08 14:35:40 2001 Return-Path: X-Sender: lojban@lojban.org X-Apparently-To: lojban@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-8_0_0_1); 8 Nov 2001 22:35:39 -0000 Received: (qmail 11876 invoked from network); 8 Nov 2001 22:35:39 -0000 Received: from unknown (216.115.97.171) by m8.grp.snv.yahoo.com with QMQP; 8 Nov 2001 22:35:39 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO stmpy-5.cais.net) (205.252.14.75) by mta3.grp.snv.yahoo.com with SMTP; 8 Nov 2001 22:35:39 -0000 Received: from bob.lojban.org (209-8-89-141.dynamic.cais.com [209.8.89.141]) by stmpy-5.cais.net (8.11.1/8.11.1) with ESMTP id fA8MZad19226 for ; Thu, 8 Nov 2001 17:35:36 -0500 (EST) Message-Id: <4.3.2.7.2.20011108161121.04d4f8d0@pop.cais.com> X-Sender: vir1035@pop.cais.com X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 4.3.2 Date: Thu, 08 Nov 2001 17:36:29 -0500 To: lojban@yahoogroups.com Subject: RE: [lojban] observatives & a construal of lo'e & le'e In-Reply-To: References: <4.3.2.7.2.20011031184403.00d39330@pop.cais.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed From: Logical Language Group At 03:53 AM 11/2/01 +0000, you wrote: >lojbab: > > >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. > > > So we say it is an "observative", which most > > people can glork in English to get approximately the desired meaning. > >The simplest and truest thing would be to not mention the observative >at all. It turns out that I correctly understood the rules and conventions >in the first place, but was misled into thinking I didn't understand them >by, mainly, your messages. People seem to think that conventions are hard and fast rules, but they aren't. They are observations about "how it is usually done", which in turn can amount to a recording of "what usage has decided". We specifically documented some of these that are a feature of natural language in general, or were decided in the TLI era, especially when they were much debated and used. > > >#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, > >*the usual steam comes out of ears* -- where are these extremely verbose >explanations? Quote them to me. You can't, because they don't exist. You just said "{lo pa prototype of lo'i broda}" is too verbose, did you not? Is the corresponding idea less verbose in English? "One prototypical example of a fish" sounds like the equivalent to the above, and I'm not sure I would try to say it less verbosely if I wanted to be understood. That is the same number of words and probably more syllables (depending on the lujvo for prototype) than the Lojban. >Furthermore, how about reading a text on lexical semantics. You will >doubtless be surprised to discover that even only-marginally adequate >explanations of natural language words are very verbose (in the sense >that they take a lot of words, not in the usual sense of taking more >words than necessary), and moreover the most everyday words can need >the longest explanations. > >So, enough of this nonsense. YOU are the one who thinks that verbosity is a problem. Lojban is GENERALLY more verbose than English, and it should be expected to be so. It records finer distinctions of meaning while eschewing polysemy and grammatical ambiguity, requiring all substantial concepts to be polysyllabic, and doing all this with fewer phonemes. Everything in Lojban is stacked to increase the verbosity of saying the same thing, even if one does not seek to avoid glorking. > > 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). > >I'm fairly sure you read the thread only cursorily and with little >comprehension. Quite probable. I'm trying to average less then 15 minutes a day on reading the list in hopes that I can start turning my attention to what needs to be done. > > (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 > >MY semantic theories? Which are they, and why are they mine? YOU are the one that seeks to clearly render some form (that you approve of) of prototype theory in Lojban nonverbosely with a gadri. No one else seems to have asked how to say this sort of thing. and indeed it seems that there is no agreement as to what prototype theory is to be rendered even among the few who are arguing. So it is "yours" in that it is your priority to have a word for the concept. Prototype theory seems to be a plurality, hence "theories", and they are semantic theories. > > to be non-verbose in Lojban, which of course would favor them rather > than being > > metaphysically neutral. > >I think I would be wasting my breath if I tried to explain to you why >what you say is wrong, because I don't believe you come to the discussion >with the necessary goodwill and openmind and genuine wish to understand >all the issues. I try to have good will, my mind is usually open, even though I may be unwilling to consider any language changes regardless of what my mind may think. I usually wish to understand, but don't often succeed given my lack of technical linguistic background, and general lack of time. > > 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. > >Why are you participating in this thread, then? To try to figure out what the issue is, and in particular why what you want is distinct enough to warrant a separate gadri. My point is that the specifics of what a given gadri means will depend on the semantic theory and metaphysics of the speaker and listener. Someone who doesn't subscribe to the Mr. Rabbit concept will never need a gadri for that concept. Someone else who does use such, will probably not use the baggage of some other metaphysics. >Read my original message >in this thread as a statement of what I want to mean by lo'e and leave >the rest of us to discuss what we want to mean by lo'e. I have been, for the most part. If I throw my two cents in, it is usually because I see a question about original motivation, or because I honestly don't see what the issue is. {lo'e} and {le'e} are poorly understood, little used and in little demand >*relative to other parts of Lojban*. All the same, you are right: because >the language as a whole is little used, substantial parts of it are >effectively spare -- virgin territory waiting to be assigned meaning. Or used with a rather broader or more nebulous meaning that must be glorked. >Personally I don't approve of using forms with 'experimental' interpretations >that haven't been properly thought out. Text is almost instantly obsolete and >very confusing, because it doesn't come with any indication of which >experimental interpretation was being used. If it is a text to explicate some new experimental explication, it generally should include the explication with it. After all, when we introduce new jargon into a technical discussion, we usually define that jargon, then use it as a short form for the long-winded explanation thereafter. If jargon-usage is unclear from context we horror-quote it to invite a question or reinclude an indication of the meaning. These seem like the normal ways to add to the lexicon and sometimes to the grammar, of English. I don't see why it cannot work for Lojban. >Also, there is the risk of ill >thought out interpretations gaining currency (as I suspect might be happening >to da'i). I suspect that until people use it a bit, it will be hard for people to understand why it is ill thought out. Until communication fails, stricter definition won't be remembered. > > >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. > >Can you cite any examples? I don't remember having advocated excluding >from Lojban anything that is known to be useful in natural language. You just said that you don't approve of using forms that are "ill-thought out". Isn't that the philosopher's point of view above? > > >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. > >You mean theories of categorization and ontology. Lojban provides gadri >for the so-called 'classical theory'. > >I think I have said in previous messages that I am not competent to >offer a better explanation than I have already given, but you could >try reading _Women, Fire and Dangerous Things_, which is popular with >some members of this list. I've tried. I invariably fall asleep before I finish the first chapter. Which is a shame, because I keep trying since it SEEMS interesting. But I can try again - it is still by my bed from the last attempt. > > The ones we have are loosely defined so that people with > > different theories or even no theory at all can communicate. > >"no theory at all" is impossible. "No theory at all" meaning they just use the words and make no attempt to figure out what they mean or why they work. The ultimate glorkjunkie practice that we call "natural language use" (I certainly did not think about what words meant when I was a young kid). >But yes, I am completely in favour >of having loose definitions that can accommodate multiple philosophies >and that can be further explored by the philosophomanes. OK. > >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. > >English _Hamlet_ has a singular referent: _Hamlet_ is/*are. As I said, >lo'e cuktrxamleta is SYNONYMOUS with English _Hamlet_. Now surely you >know what the word _Hamlet_ means -- you speak English, after all. So >now you know what lo'e cuktrxamleta means. I don't know what others might think are the bounds of "Hamlet", which is why I mentioned Klingon and German. I don't think there is one meaning of Hamlet, because sometimes I would use Hamlet generically without making distinctions, and sometimes strictly limiting it to the original version and calling the other "The Klingon Hamlet" or "The Klingon Translation of Hamlet". > > 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_. > >Take an English sentence with _The Odyssey_ in it, and translate it into >Lojban. You will be able to translate _The Odyssey_ as _lo'e cuktrodisi_; >the two phrases are synonymous. >I< would not translate the typical English sentence with _The Odyssey_ using lo'e %^) I'm trying to understand why you would. lojbab -- lojbab lojbab@lojban.org 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