[YG Conlang Archives] > [jboske group] > messages [Date Index] [Thread Index] >
Jordan:
> On Tue, Nov 26, 2002 at 06:03:58PM +0000, Jorge Llambias wrote:
> > la and cusku di'e
> [...]
> > [lo'e/le du'u]
> > >I'll check my archives to try to locate the messages where this
> > >was discussed. There were a few messages from me and xorxes
> > >probably worth putting on the wiki, not because they decided
> > >anything but because they spelt out all the issues and
> > >considerations pretty clearly
> >
> > I think it's these and follow-ups:
> >
> > http://groups.yahoo.com/group/jboske/message/595
> > http://groups.yahoo.com/group/jboske/message/618
>
> Hrm, I only see followups from you, And, and Adam. If that's a
> jboske consensus....
The consensus pertained not to these messages about default gadri
choice for singleton categories, but rather to the meaning of
lo'e. John supported the myopic singularization view (as consistent
with Woldy), and perhaps Nick did too. PC didn't, but since he
didn't have a clear counterproposal or clear counterarguments I
didn't see him as significantly subtracting from the consensus.
Even this number of people may not seem very many, especially
when you consider that Lojban List has 250 subscribers, but
almost everybody who has the ability and willingness (and time)
to provide useful contributions to Lojbanology is on Jboske.
So a consensus among a tiny number of people on Jboske still
amounts to consensus among all Lojbanists competent to contribute
to a consensus.
But even though only me, xorxes and Adam participated in this
thread about default gadri choice for singletons, it is significant
that the two or three people who have actually thought the issues
through and published their resulting thoughts do see completely
eye-to-eye.
> Yahoo's thread view completely sucks though
> (why no tree-style view? Bah they suck), so I may be missing
> replies..
Yes, it's hell to try to browse the archives. That's why I didn't
just say "go read the archives".
> Anyway, to me, it seems that the definition about lo'e broda refering
> to a broda in a world[1] where lo'i broda is singleton is weak: there's
> an infinity of worlds in which lo'i broda is a singleton set,
> so this in effect would make lo'e (under this definition) more or
> less meaningless (unless you just leave it all up to conversational
> implicature, but then the analysis is essentially a nop)
Nonetheless, the analysis has some support both from linguistics
and from natural languages.
> [1] the part about 'is exactly like this world in every other
> respect' is pretty much impossible imho: if you change lo'i broda
> to a singleton set, you've changed more than just the cardinality
> of that set. For example, if [](x)(Fx -> Gx), different cardinalities
> of {x: Fx} requires different cardinality of {x: Gx}. Furthermore,
> you change the cardinality of any number of other sets due to the
> assignment to truth values of predications about this new single
> member of the lo'e-set
That seems to me to be a mere quibble. Change to 'is as minimally
different from this world as possible'. I think that it is important
for Lojban to allow that there are many different and equally valid
ways of conceptualizing one and the same 'objective reality':
each conceptualization is a 'world', but it is also necessary that
we can each use our own conceptualizations to discuss the same
'objective reality'. If I conceptualize lo'i broda as a singleton,
I want to be able to discuss broda with you using my conceptualization
but without having to get into a possibly irrelevant argument about
how many broda there are. As I said in earlier posts when I made
this point (to Adam, mainly), I think I can count on the support of
Lojbab and Xod and other prowhorfians on this issue.
> Furthermore, who gets to say what set of statements are true about
> this new singleton member? If it's not related to the set of true
> statements about all the members in the real world, if there are
> members in the real world[2], then the analysis is clearly wrong,
> in my view, as it essentially says "lo'e means whatever the speaker
> wants it to mean" (which actually might not be bad for le'e ;O )
The answer to your question is that each conceptualizational world
comes with (possibly implicit or obscure) criteria for saying what
statements are true about the membership of lo'i broda. If we
are to discuss broda fruitfully then we will both need to
understand this conceptualization. But this is right and proper
and as it should be. It is not for Lojban to dictate us our
metaphysics. If on one conceptualization there are za'u broda in
the world and on another there is pa, it is not for Lojban to
decree that one conceptualization is valid and the other is
invalid. The idea behind myopic singularization -- loi'e/lo'e
-- is that it differs from (lo) pa in making explicit its
contingency on a certain conceptualization.
> [2] This, btw, is why I think that "lo'e pavyseljirna" (or other
> empty thing) is either na'i, meaningless, or vacuously true no
> matter what is said about it (probably all three). (On the other
> hand, le'e pavyseljirna probably implies the speaker thinks something
> is a pavyseljirna.)
This may be true for your personal metaphysics, but it shouldn't
be imposed on everyone else, and ideally you would be able to
at least understand others' metaphysics. Lojban grammar has a
duty to make sure that every sentence has a clear and determinate
meaning, but not to make sure that that meaning is consistent with
a certain privileged metaphysics.
--And.