Re: Response to And on Names

[And Rosta <cbmvax!uunet!UCL.AC.UK!cuvmb.cc.columbia.edu!ucleaar>]

Lojbab writes:
> And writes:
> >If Lojban doesn't have names like English does, it leads to an
> >interesting situation.  _La bob_ doesn't mean "entity named bob" because
> >there aren't any names.  Rather, it means "entity belonging to a
> >category denoted by the word _bob_, having unpredictable membership".
> >The category "bob" is an extensionally defined set.  So when we meet
> >someone for the first time, we should ask not "What is your name" but
> >"which 'LA set' do you belong to", where 'LA set' is a term covering all
> >categories introduced by the word _la_, _lai_, etc.
>
> No.  The la/lai/la'i descriptor are designators.  "la bab." means the
> one I am labelling with the name "bab."  The restrictive clause is to
> help the listener identify which of the things he/she believes I might
> be referring to by "bab." is the one I actually intend.  When I use "la
> bab."  I have a specific individual or individuals named Bob in mind
> that I am referring to, so from the Lojbanic speaker point of view,
> there is nothing 'unpredictable' about it.  The listener may not know
> who I am calling "la bab.", but that just means communication is not
> effective.  It would be the same as if I used "X" in English where one
> would expect a name - you know I'm referring to someone, even though
> undoubtedly the person in question is not normally called 'X'.

I'm not convinced. First of all, not only names have specific referents:
I can have a specific cat in mind when I say _le mlatu_ and here too
my addressee's recovery of my intended referent is contingent on effective
communication. But the crucial point is that if Lojban restrictive
modification is like English restrictive modification, then the sense
of a name must be an extensionally defined category (whose members
can each be referred to by the word _bab_, or whatever). - If you can
restrictively modify _bab_, it must be the case that _bab_ denotes a category
from which the intended referent is selected.

So in a lojban lexicon-cum-onomasticon there would be one entry for
_djeimz. kartr._, defined by listing the members of this category
((1) inventor of guaspi; (2) US president; etc.). By contrast in English
there would be two or more entries for _James Carter_, each one
meaning only one person. So, English onomastics may involve homonymy,
whereas Lojban never does. [I'm not sure I agree with this para, but I
offer it all the same.]

Perhaps it is not Lojban names but restrictive modification that differs
from English. At any rate, since the incompatability of the two in English
is not arbitrary & easily explicable, at least one must be different in Lojban.


---
And