From a.rosta@ntlworld.com Sun Nov 11 12:16:57 2001 Return-Path: X-Sender: a.rosta@ntlworld.com X-Apparently-To: lojban@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-8_0_0_1); 11 Nov 2001 20:16:57 -0000 Received: (qmail 68158 invoked from network); 11 Nov 2001 20:16:52 -0000 Received: from unknown (216.115.97.167) by m4.grp.snv.yahoo.com with QMQP; 11 Nov 2001 20:16:52 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO mta07-svc.ntlworld.com) (62.253.162.47) by mta1.grp.snv.yahoo.com with SMTP; 11 Nov 2001 20:16:52 -0000 Received: from andrew ([62.253.88.189]) by mta07-svc.ntlworld.com (InterMail vM.4.01.03.00 201-229-121) with SMTP id <20011111201649.AQL24621.mta07-svc.ntlworld.com@andrew> for ; Sun, 11 Nov 2001 20:16:49 +0000 To: Subject: RE: [lojban] observatives & a construal of lo'e & le'e Date: Sun, 11 Nov 2001 20:16:07 -0000 Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook IMO, Build 9.0.2416 (9.0.2910.0) Importance: Normal In-Reply-To: <23.1435c7a0.291f4869@aol.com> X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2615.200 From: "And Rosta" X-Yahoo-Profile: andjamin pc: > a.rosta@ntlworld.com 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.