[YG Conlang Archives] > [jboske group] > messages [Date Index] [Thread Index] >
Jordan:
> On Fri, Dec 06, 2002 at 12:52:12AM -0000, And Rosta wrote:
> > John:
> [...]
> > > and the second one is
> > > probably about the (statistically) average American rather than the
> > > typical one. But the third and the fourth have answers. I don't know
> > > the answer to the third (or even if the answer is known). But
> > > I think it's clearly just false, not meaningless, to claim that
> the typical
> > > American will go out with you Friday week. The overwhelming majority of
> > > them will not: indeed, those that will are a small and highly atypical
> > > subset
> >
> > Me & xorxes opine that to determine the truth or falsity of these
> > examples requires a further metaphysical context not inherent in
> > lo'e. For example, if I know only one American girl, or if I am
> > fixated on one in particular, then when I do my squinting, her
> > features may persevere as all other Americans abstract away. And lo,
> > she, lo'e merko, may indeed go out with me (-- sorry Nick!
> > nobody can compete with my sexual magnetism...)
>
> You're talking about le'e here
No, {lo'e}. I start with the full extension of {lo'i broda} and squint
it down to one. The picture I end up with depends on whether I am
squinting from a global perspective or a local perspective. Me &
xorxes think one can squint from any perspective. John and Adam want
to restrict squinting to from a global perspective.
> {lo'e merko prenu cu ninmu} is false, but under that particular set
> of circumstances you described, if you were to say {le'e merko prenu
> cu ninmu} it would be a true statement (though if I were to it
> wouldn't be)
As I say, it's true or false depending on your perspective and depending
on your personal theory of squinting. I certainly don't agree that
Lojban semantics decrees that it is false.
--And.