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

From: "And Rosta" <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 11 Nov 2001 20:16:07 -0000

pc:
> [email-masked] writes: 
> Well, yes, you can use a cmene, any cmene, to refer to the generic 
> Odyssey. When I said "it is important that Lojbab find a way to 
> refer to the generic Odyssey using "cuktrodisi"", what I meant was 
> "it is important that Lojbab find an expression that denotes the 
> generic Odyssey and uses "cuktrodisi"". "la cuktrodisi" means "that 
> which I am calling 'cuktrodisi'/'Odyssey'", not "that which is the 
> generic Odyssey". Similarly, "la cinfo" means "that which I am 
> calling 'cinfo'/'lion'", not "the generic lion".
> 
> Why? (or rather Why not?) It certainly can mean that, and, indeed, 
> {la cinfo} seems a wonderflly clear way to say that (well, not "the 
> generic lion", as I would understand that, but "the prototype lion" 
> as I understand And's view). In any case, we cannot decide what any 
> of these gadri means in isolation, since all these systems involve 
> the interrelation of parts. So, the crucial question would be How 
> are {le cinfo} and {le mela cinfo} related, for example -- or, to 
> return to the original problem (where the appropriateness of {la} is 
> even clearer), {le cuktrodisi} and {le mela odisix}. 
> It seems odd for And, perpetual rejector and re"condstruer" of list 
> glosses to suddenly wax excessively literal on this particular 
> reading, especially since it seems to fit so well withwith what he 
> wants, even when read ina casually literal way. 

We already have a perfectly good idea of what {la cinfo} means --
and there is no necessary connection between its referent and
the denotation of "cinfo". That means that {la cinfo} can refer
to anything, including the prototype lion, but not excluding 
anything else.

If the semantics of {la} had not been already thoroughly sorted out,
then "{la cinfo} = 'the (generic) lion'" would strike me as quite
a good idea, with {la} being reconstrued as the gadri for genericity
rather than for cmene. But that is not how things are, and it is
frustrating that attempts to progress our understanding are 
answered with attempts to demolish what there had hitherto been
consensus about.

--And.