Re: na`e

[HACKER G N <c9709244@alinga.newcastle.edu.au>]

On Mon, 22 Sep 1997 bob@MEGALITH.RATTLESNAKE.COM wrote:

> jorge@intermedia.com.a wrote:
>
>    >     lo mlatu ca'o vreta lo stizu
>    >       <What is truly a cat is in the continuative of
>    >       reclining/resting on what is truly a chair.>
>
>    Yes, perhaps I would prefer "some cat sits on some chair" for
>    the English for that.
>
> This is an old argument.  Suffice to say that I think it is practical
> in everyday language to distinguish between that which I designate
> {le} and that which really is {lo}.


But that's kind of the problem, in a way. I must admit, I don't like the
use of "lo" to mean "the", but by the same time I can understand wanting
to distinguish that which you describe from that which really is, and it
seems irritating that Lojban should arbitrarily lump together into one
word what is clearly two separate concepts: what is described versus what
really is, and what you specifically have in mind as an instance of
something versus no instance in particular. You have chosen as more
important the really-is aspect of "lo", while most other people tend to
choose the nonspecific aspect of it, but that they exist together in the
same word is an unavoidable reality.

Lojban really forces you not to talk about specific things that really
exist, which seems not only a limitation, but a veritable attack on our
conceptual faculty to know specific things about the universe. Maybe the
philosphical skepitcs are right and this is true, but if so, it should be
left up to the individual to decide this and not preprogrammed at the
linguistic level, I think.


>
>    >  2. It is false that the cat sits on the chair.
>    >     lo mlatu na ca'o vreta lo stizu
>
>    Here it does make a difference. The Lojban actually says
>    that it is false that some cat sits on some chair, so it only
>    agrees with your translation if there is a single cat in your
>    universe.
>
> Yes -- but that is what I am saying: there is one cat in my current
> universe of discourse.  Again, I see this as a pragmatic convenience
> that enables me to distinguish that which really is a cat from the
> cat-like sculpture next to her.  When you are speaking careful logic,
> which you can also do, you can expand your universe of discourse.

As long as you're aware of those considerations, fair enough, although
I'd find it more useful to distinguish general from specific things,
myself.


Regards,

Geoff