[YG Conlang Archives] > [jboske group] > messages [Date Index] [Thread Index] >
On Sat, Dec 07, 2002 at 11:40:02PM -0000, And Rosta wrote:
> 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.
I disagree. I think you *are* in fact referring to her. However,
I think actually you may just be describing your example poorly,
in which case see below.
> > (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).
Ok. So what you actually mean, is that in this hypothetical
situation, to *you* it is objective, and thus lo'e makes sense?
This makes sense, but I had presumed you would've taken this level
of subjectivity for granted and that there would be no need to
debate it. (what's the attitudinal for "duh"?).
However, this doesn't justify misuse of lo'e which deliberately
ignores strong evidence to contrary. For example, if you had met
thousands of merkypre, in addition to being exposed to various
aspects of merkypre kulnu etc etc, and then, thinking of that one
girl say "lo'e merkypre cu ninmu" you are not speaking truth (or
properly using gadri---actually in this example the proper gadri
is "le", but you get the point (which makes sense, again, with the
truth of "le'e merkypre cu nelci zoizo. baseball .zo." but falsehood
of the same with lo'e)). I had thought that *this* was what was
meant by local squinting (at least in xorxes' view).
> > (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.
If you meant it the way it is now sounding, then I think you're
being extreemly trivial. Obviously I may say "lo'e merkypre cu
palci" and *think* i'm being objective and truthful, when in fact
it may not (zo'o or may...) be the case.
> > (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.
Yes, you've acknoweledge this. But, you also subsequently claimed
that there was "no basis for arguing ...". Forgive me if I assumed
you had simply forgot.
However, I think you're just being unclear on exactly how you define
"local squinting" (which I think may be different than xorxes).
[...]
> > 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.
It depends what your side is. If it is as above, then it is trivially
true and completely nonimportant.
> 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.
--
Jordan DeLong - fracture@hidden.email
lu zo'o loi censa bakni cu terzba le zaltapla poi xagrai li'u
sei la mark. tuen. cusku
Attachment:
binalxfF5tIDx.bin
Description: application/ygp-stripped