Subject: RE: I like chocolate (types, tokens and {lo'e})

From: [email-masked]
Date: Fri, 13 Sep 2002 12:07:15 EDT

One of the features of flying across six time zones is that you end up with a 
distorted sleep cycle. So, I have been waking up at weird times (and falling 
asleep at weird times, too, but that is not so objectionable -- or so useful) 
and when I do ideas turn up in my head that I can't get their in the normal 
course of things. Which just happened in re xorxes' {lo'e}:
xorxes insists that his {lo'e} is not that of Lojban, but he also wants it to 
have the semantic properties of that locution (and {le'e} and "the average 
..." if we still had one of those). These, while in the shape of sumti, are, 
in fact, shorthand for fairly complex constructions -- and different 
constructions in different contexts. What binds them together are the 
properties that are actually (standard {lo'e}) or thought to be ({le'e}) 
typical of members of a class. In various contexts, a {le/o'e} may bring up 
some of those properties or a thing that has them or ... (I haven't looked 
with all the possibilities here, so I can't give a complete list), or simply 
describe what one of those properties is. xorxes want his {lo'e} to do this 
as well -- with, I suppose, the properties universal or defining to a set. 
Unfortunately for me (and you all -- if there is still anyone reading this 
besides xorxes), he chose to describe this usage with a word that just 
doesn't fit: "type." So, I have been riffing on types and tokens -- which 
are not (in sort of standard usage) idiomatic, but normal referential words 
referring to abnormal things. And xorxes has, in that context, been trying to 
sort out some of the semantic expansions of his expression in various 
contexts. His "use" is, I think, mainly about things which have the 
properties embedded in his lo'e ... and, I suspect, his "talk about" will 
turn out to be expanding on what those properties are. That is, 
{mi nelci lo'e sfofa} means I like things that have certain properties had by 
sofas and
and {ta simsa lo'e sfofa} means that that has some properties of sofas (or 
some closely related properties, perhaps). I expect examples of talking 
about to be like {lo'e sfofa cu nilce} or {lo'e sfofa cu clani}, pulling out 
the properties involved.
If this is correct, then I don't really see much difference between xorxes 
{lo'e} and Lojban's -- except perhaps a stricter rule for what counts as a 
relevant property, which may or may not be significant.