[YG Conlang Archives] > [jboske group] > messages [Date Index] [Thread Index] >
John: > And Rosta scripsit: [....] > > 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...) > > That, however, makes hash of the in-mind vs. actual distinction present > in lo'e vs. le'e. Talking about lo'e merko binds you to the truth > as much as talking of lo merko does (of course, you can be in error, > or lying, or ...) I still think that you & others seem not to have properly understood me yet. Yes, lo'e binds you to the truth, but is an objective truth or a subjective truth? As an analogy, can I truthfully say "the lorry dwindled into the distance"? Yes, if truth can be subjective. No if truth is objective and unaltered by the vantage point of the observer. I think that Lojban should not adjudicate on matters of epistemology. If you disagree then at least we should broaden things out and say that some UI or other can be used to indicate whether subjective or objective truth is intended. No hash is made of the le'e/lo'e distinction by allowing for subjectivity (= local squinting). For one thing, allowing subjectivity does not disallow objectivity, and we seem to be in agreement that le'e/lo'e distinction is clear on an objective (= global squinting) view. Even on the subjective/local squinting view, if I am fixated on one American girl in particular, and subjectively end up seeing something heavily coloured by her when I squint away all intermerko differences, then there is no basis for arguing that I am talking about le'e merko, since the input to my squinting is lo'i merko, not le'i merko. --And.