[YG Conlang Archives] > [jboske group] > messages [Date Index] [Thread Index] >
Nick:
> You guys really did prematurely declare victory
In the sense of a collective victory on achieving consensus?
The situation was, to cut a long story short, I described
loi'e, then everybody who'd been involved said "that works
for me", and then we found we had this disagreement on
objectivity and representativeness, which turned out to be
quite substantive.
But I don't understand your "lo'ie != lo'ei". Nobody has proposed
a "lo'ie", and the only person who thinks that "lo'e" or "loi'e"
= "lo'ei" is xorxes.
> The point of this intensional x, as in "I'm looking for a doctor", or
> "I want to talk to a doctor" (Quine's transparent vs. opaque
> readings) are that, if the doctor is lx.doctor(x), you don't want
> *anything* else predicated of the doctor. The most atypical doctor in
> the world can satisfy that requirement
The ability to use the singular generic for that is a byproduct
of its singularity. (Xorxes has been saying this all along, but it
has dawned on me only now. Yet more proof of the law of XIAR/JIAR.)
Once there is only one broda, "I'm looking for a doctor" is like
saying "I'm looking for John" or "I'm looking for water", and the
opacity effect goes away.
> And that isn't what lo'e is defined as, dammit. lo'e is defined as 'typical'
>
> Even prototypical won't do, and And is being silly if he claims it
> does. Under no understanding of birds are penguins typical or even
> prototypical birds. Yet, if you're looking for a bird, and find a
> penguin, then you're satisfied
That's because the penguin IS Mr Bird! In Mr Bird's world, the penguin
in your garden and the sparrow in mine are the same individual.
You can see them as different individuals rather than being Mr Bird,
but then I can see Nick-in-2001 as a different individual from
Nick-in-2002, rather than both being Mr Nick.
You are construing "prototypical" to mean "a possibly imaginary
exemplar of all the properties category members typically have".
By "Prototype" I mean conceptualizing a category as an individual,
and that's the sense that {loi'e/lei'e} have. (I will cease to
ascribe it to {lo'e/le'e} because that former apparent-consensus
has lapsed into controversy.)
> So it now looks to me that, if we resolved "I'm looking for a doctor"
> in Lojban as {mi sisku leka ce'u mikce}, then we should resolve this
> intensional article with {ka}, as something like {le jai ka ce'u
> mikce} (or {se ka}, or whatever.) And if this discussion were not so
> utterly free form, I'd be able to find where someone had an objection
> to that
Sisku x2 (ka) is an abomination. I prefer djica x2 (nu) . But as I say
above, singularization annuls opacity, so copes with nitcu x2 ('object').
> But this is not lo'e. lo'e does make extra predications of its
> referent, based on representativeness. If you're trying to shoehorn
> the intensional generic into it, kindly don't. It is something else
Well certainly we can define different sorts of generic gadri and
then decide which get lo'e/le'e shapes by voting or flipping a coin
or whatever.
But our earlier discussions (with key input from John) concluded that
the singularizing generic copes with CLL exx of lo'e, and that
typicality could legitimately be seen as just an alternative gloss to 'generic'
or 'prototype', so not entailing fadni or some statistical
notion of typicality.
> That is to say, I am willing for lo'e to be neutral between prototype
> and typical (And's lo'e). I am not willing for lo'e to be neutral
> between representative singularisation and intensional generic
> (Jorge's lo'e). And I think it a matter of some priority that we find
> an acceptable way of expressing the intensional generic --- without
> a gadri necessarily being the way to do it
Hang on, though. Until today, only Jorge said "lo'ei" is equivalent
to "lo'e/loi'e", *without disputing the meaning of "lo'e/loi'e"*.
As of today, I finally see what he meant.
> To bring this back to the planet Earth, btw, the intensional "a
> doctor" means "any doctor".That's what I'll have to base any
> paedagogy around
Okay, and to clarify, if you know there's only one doctor then "any
doctor" is not distinct from a transparent reading.
--And.