[YG Conlang Archives] > [jboske group] > messages [Date Index] [Thread Index] >
Lojbab: > > > 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 > > Lojbab doesn't understand it, as with most of jboske %^) > > Your argument makes sense, I think. Nick's argument makes sense, I > think. I don't know if And's makes sense; I understood neither him nor > Jorge when they argued the matter. But this is in part because this whole > squinting metaphor hurts my eyes %^) I claim you as my fellow-traveller because it comes down to this: On the Adam/John/Jordan/Nick story, it is clearer what sort of picture the speaker is describing, precisely because the picture is required to be objective. On the And/xorxes story, it is less clear what sort of picture the speaker is describing, because the picture is allowed to be subjective. Insisting on objective representations of truth/reality rather than subjective ones is a violation of metaphysical neutrality, so counter to principles of Lojban that you hold dear. Ergo, you are on my side, did you but know it... ;) > le'e broda to me involves making extra assumptions - that the in-mind > properties of le'e broda, probably abstracted from a specific subset of > broda, can be generalized to all of broda. If that generalization is > valid, then lo'e broda would also apply, but if it is not, or if it is > unknown, then le'e broda is safer and more accurately reflects what we are > thinking > > I would tend to use lo'e (broda) for those properties that might be useful > in writing a dictionary definition of the *denotation* of broda, whereas I > would use le'e (broda) to invoke *connotation*, and of course connotations > are culture and context-specific > > But what this has to do with squinting, I can't say I certainly didn't intend to claim that your actual understanding of lo'e/le'e places you on my side. What places you on my side is that the debate comes down to metaphysical neutrality vs. compulsory objectivism (I'm not sure if 'objectivism' is the correct term, but you know what I mean -- the idea that we all share the same worldview). --And.