[YG Conlang Archives] > [jboske group] > messages [Date Index] [Thread Index] >
We need a term for the sorts of intergadri distinctions that can be expressed by LAhE (i.e. lV/lVi/lV'i/lV'e as opposed to o-gadri/e-gadri/ a-gadri). But I can't think of a good term. Anyway, here's an attempt at a brief summary of where we stand, starting from the picture I prefer. 1. set (mathematical set -- a concept unfamiliar from natural languages) 2. quantified/individuals (use of a quantifier entails individuals, and individuals entails use of a quantifier) 3. substance (called 'mass' in linguistics) 4. collective 5. 'Unique' -- there are objections to the choice of terminology, but please bear with it until we find a better one 6. Representative Imaginary. Current main areas of disagreement/debate: (i) Do we need to distinguish Substance and Collective, or can we conflate them as Lojban has traditionally done? Xod and I are pro distinction and anti conflation. John is pro conflation and anti distinction. The debate is ongoing. Conflation would provide the most compatibility with CLL and prior usage, but in that case the anticonflationists will want their way to make the distinction. (ii) Do gadri need to distinguish between different sorts of Representative Imaginary? If there is one gadri (or LAhE) for Representative Imaginary, does it have to be pinned down to a specific sort (e.g. Archetype vs. Modal Average)? Here I am weakly pro conflation and Nick is anti. Nick wanted a way to specify which sort of Representative Imaginary is being referred to, but others seem to prefer to pin the meaning down to just Prototype/Archetype. The debate has waned, but without consensus. But probably, pinning the meaning down to Prototype/Archetype has the best chance of winning consensus. Other related issues: (iii) What exactly is a 'Unique'? I will quote below some explanations from recent messages. (iv) Representative Imaginary raises scope-like ambiguities? How are they to be dealt with? This hasn't yet been discussed. But until it has been settled we can't take it for granted that a gadri or LAhE is the best way to do Representative Imaginaries. (Perhaps we need a generic quantifier in combination with a sumti or in combination with a ROI? We don't know yet.) (v) How do we express all these meaning distinnctions (and any conflations) in Lojban? The time to discuss this is definitely not yet ripe. We can't at this stage take it for granted that the gadri system will change, apart from having the meanings of lVi and lV'e clarified. So when xod says: > What I am really saying here though, which nobody is addressing, is > that we should reserve mass-gadri for collectives. And disambiguate > collectives from substances, because they are very different things I think it is premature. We should first agree on the distinctions and conflations we want to make. Then we can discuss how to make them. Regarding Unique: John: > And Rosta scripsit: > > > 1. substance > > 2. prototype. > > 3. unique. > > I think this is exactly the Right Thing in every respect, and > with the addition of 4. individual(s), should form our new gadri > system. I do think however that the term "unique" is bad, because > it suggests that there is literally, rather than notionally, only > one of the thing. Whereas in fact what I take to be going on is > a sort of superposition of the actual things (birds, Superbowl games, etc.) > > We can talk of "the LLG meeting" using this form, because it is an annual > recurrence of the same thing As I wrote to xod: # > Isn't "replaceable" or "exchangable" a better term for this? # # We could add those as glosses, but the essence is that the way # I conceptualize 'xod' serves as a model for the way I conceptualize # 'apple'. Just as I could think of there being many xods, so I # can and normally do think of there being many apples. But I # normally think of there being just one xod, so likewise I want # a way to think of there being just one apple. 'Replaceable' # and 'exchangeable' don't strike me as ideal terms for describing # this. So I am okay with any alternative term, so long as it is not misleading. Jordan: > Unique still makes no sense to me If you mean "I understand it, but can't see why we would want to have it in the language", then the answers are firstly that some of do find it useful, secondly that everybody should find it useful for "This depicts a snake" (see earlier message on this subject), and thirdly that it avoids metaphysical bias (just as eschewing any fundamental Countable/Uncountable distinction does) and opens up to us new and unfamiliar worldviews. If you mean "I don't understand it", see the above quoted para, and cf. what I said in an earlier post: # 3. unique. Either (a) suppose that there is just one apple, # which can miraculously be in many different places at the # same time. This is the unique apple. If you see a bowl # containing five apples, then the unique apple has somehow # managed to appear in the bowl in five places at once. Or # (b) look at every apple separately, and ignore their # differences, including their spatial location: since you no # longer see any differences, you are seeing just a single # apple, the same apple each time you look. (b) is what *I* # understand by 'squinting'. (NB uniques work better with # things that aren't in many different places at the same time; # e.g. it would be easier to see the Superbowl (an important # annual sporting event, I think) as a unique, the same individual # that reappears once a year.) --And.