[YG Conlang Archives] > [jboske group] > messages [Date Index] [Thread Index] >
reply to Nick continued:
> >There has been disagreement about different sorts of Average or
> >representativeness -- mean, median, mode, prototypicality. I don't
> >think there should be different gadri for different sorts of
> >Average, nor {pe} phrases to specify. Rather, the gadri should
> >simply presuppose that the referent is arrived at by some process
> >of averaging and squinting such that the outcome is representative
> >of the set in some relevant way. If one wants to be more precise
> >about the exact kind of averaging involved, then one can use
> >a lujvo whose x2 is lo'i or le'i; the x1 gives the product of
> >the averaging
>
> Obviously you're rejecting my proposal, and I am defensive about it.
> But why?
Because I think Average does form a natural conceptual class -- the
imaginary representative member. It is reasonable that gadri have
broad meanings, and that fine-grained distinctions among these
meanings should be done by brivla (LE -prototypical be lV'i broda).
> If squinting is an interrogable process, and prototyping is
> something you individually carry in with you (particularly if, as I
> suspect, there is variation in prototypes), shouldn't you be able to
> interrogate how the Average was formed from the population *always*?
> Presuppose without being able to make explicit?
You can make explicit by using brivla instead of gadri. The same
objection you raise can be levelled at {re le broda}, {re lo broda} --
the criteria for individuating broda (why 2 and not 3? how come
they're not all the same individual?) can also be interrogated,
but I wouldn't argue that all gadri must be associated with these
pe-phrases. Better that interrogation or specification of these
details be done with brivla.
> That is not the
> Lojban way. And deferring it to a lujvo is not good enough: you're
> saying that the presuppositions of lo'e are not to be interrogable,
> as long as you use lo'e and not the lujvo
Maybe I don't understand what interrogability is. If it means
literal asking, then you can ask by using the lujvo.
So far, gadri are not interrogable in your narrow sense. Yet even
existing gadri should be interrogable.
> >I would like to make two further proposals (I want them to be
> >taken jointly, not separately):
> >* cmavo for Average are lo'e & le'e
> >* cmavo for Unique are loi'e & lei'e and are made official
>
> Look, I think you should get your official cmavo (but the onus is on
> you to be a lot clearer on what this unique thing is and what it buys
> us.) If it's a Kind or something like that, I want it kept away from
> lo'e, because lo'e is by Founder intent a prototype, and this ain't
> no prototype, because it isn't necessarily even imaginary
I will abstain from involvement in that decision, I think, though
I reserve the right to change my mind and voice an opinion if I
acquire one.
> I do think this is nothing to do with Jorge's lo'e, and I think you
> now agree, because Jorge's lo'e (anything that fits into lx.broda(x)
> ) is a space-limited individual, and your singulation looks to me not
> to be space-limited
I think Jorge & I share an understanding of Unique. It is space-limited
if space-limitedness is a property of brodahood, but it can be in
many different places at once. LE-unique cipni is in many places at
once. Now, since being in many places at once is a rather strange
property for an individual to have (e.g. Nick can't be in many places
at once), I may find it weird to see the class of birds as an
individual bird, and so not say "LE-unique cipni": but that's my
decision to make as a Lojban speaker.
--And.