[YG Conlang Archives] > [jboske group] > messages [Date Index] [Thread Index] >
Jordan: > On Sat, Dec 07, 2002 at 11:05:23AM -0000, And Rosta wrote: > > 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 > > I think there is a basis: (i) you have a particular group of things > (in this case containing only 1 element) in mind when you start the > squinting, which suggests an e-gadri. e-gadri are +specific; "in mind" is only a gloss. +specific = referential = truth conditions can be determined only once the reference has been identified. So in the scenario I intended to describe, I have this American girl in mind in the sense that I am preoccupied with her, but not in the sense that I am referring to her; I am not myopically singularizing a subset of Americans that contains only her. > (ii) your squinting is based > on actual existing creatures (in this case only one), instead of > just the general concept "merkypre". You misunderstand the scenario I intend to describe. My squinting is based on the general concept "merkypre", but on the general concept "merkypre" as subjectively represented in my own mind (in a subjective, local squinting version). > (iii) you should be able to > make these generalizations about these creatures without needing > to commit yourself to claiming they are members of lo'i merkypre, > and le'e satisfies this (lo'e me le). The input to your squinting > is not neccesarily lo'i merkypre as you claim. it is one thing > which you happen to think is a member of lo'i merkypre (i.e. it's > le'i merkypre). (iv) Furthermore, taking only 1 member of lo'i > merkypre as input is not sufficent to make a generalization (this > one isn't actually circular, even though it sounds that way---I > mean the word 'generalization' itself, not as in lo'e). I understand your reasons, but I think they fail to apprehend the cognitive scenario I had intended, namely that one's perspective on lo'i broda may be subjective. > (v) deciding > that lo'e is global, and le'e is global of a particular group of > entities (lo'e me le---i.e. local) allows us to easily specify which > in normal discourse. I already acknowledged this. But by insisting that it *must* work this way, you deny the validity of subjectivity. That should be your prerogative as a speaker, but should not be imposed on all speakers. > Your ad-hoc method leaves it completely > unspecified, and allows people to use global or local with either, > effectively nulling the diference between the two, in addition to > abandoning the normal e-gadri and o-gadri distinction The e/o difference is not nullified, but I agree that it leaves the local/global distinction unspecified. Lojban's normal strategy in such cases is either (a) to create two cmavo, one for each value, which makes expression of the distinction mandatory (annoyingly, this is how the gadri work), or (b) to leave the cmavo unspecified, but add extra cmavo that can make the distinction explicit (as done with tense, etc.). > I'm sure there's other arguments.. > > > I'm going to claim Lojbab and xod for my side, even if they aren't > > reading or understanding this thread or even if they think they > > disagree with me! > > I doubt at least that lojbab would support it, as your side invalidates > the only existing explanation of lo'e and le'e. However the view > that le'e is local squinting (i.e. squinting through lo'e me le > like cowan said) and lo'e is global is perfectly consistent with > the book's examples Le'e is not local squinting. Le'e is myopic singularization of le'i. My side doesn't invalidate the explanation of lo'e and le'e. Lo'e is myopic singularization of lo'i. This leaves us with the question of whether squinting is necessarily global/objective, or more generally, whether our concept of broda may be subjective. That is a metaphysical issue, not a logical issue, and I claim Lojbab and xod because they are big on insisting on metaphysical neutrality. --And.