Re: le/lo

[Geoffrey Hacker <c9709244@alinga.newcastle.edu.au>]

Initial disclaimer: I will probably learn to anticipate your own
conventions regarding the use of {le} and {lo} in time, to avoid
confusion, and that will make some of the following discourse probably a
little academic.

On Thu, 30 Oct 1997 bob@megalith.rattlesnake.com wrote:

> My thesis is that {lo} provides more information to a listener than
> {le}; and that sometimes one is misled by the common English glosses
> of `the' for {le} and `a' for {lo}.

I agree that the mechanics of Lojban allow you to use {lo} to indicate
specific things; however, this usage is totally inconsistent with
all the examples in the refgramm, and is highly contrastive to the common
gloss of {lo} as a nonspecific article. I think it's unfortunate that you
can't more easily express specificity plus veridicality in Lojban, because
I take it that if you could, there would be no reason to use {lo} to refer
to something specific, even if you could constrain your universe of
discourse to something small enough only to include specific items. I
think that would lead to much clearer thinking and expression in this area
of semantics.

> And if the context reduces to one real cat and one real but small dog,
> with no further distinguishing context, {lo mlatu} conveys more
> information to you, the listener, than does {le mlatu}.  In this
> case, to the speaker, {lo mlatu} means `the cat', whereas {le mlatu}
> means `what the speaker describes as one or more specific entities to
> be called cats', a more puzzling designation to a listener.

I don't think it needs to be more puzzling, though. Again, pragmatics
seems to dictate that you will tend to describe a cat as a cat. Describing
a cat as a small dog, when there is a cat that you could be talking about,
and in the absence of any context to the contrary, is rude. It is the
deliberate obfuscation of your meaning to your listener.

> Until there is more context, she may not be referring to what we in
> English call `the cat', for two reasons:
>
>   * {le mlatu} may be plural;
>
>   * {le mlatu} may refer to other than veridical cats.

Default context is important. But it would seem extraordinary that the
default context would allow you to use {le} with rampant non-veridicality
without some clear guidelines for figurative or approximating use in
place. If she really has two cats, there will be strong pragmatic pressure
on her to describe them as cats.

 >
> Specificity does not mean `a specific cat' in the conventional English
> sense of the words.

'A specific cat' in conventional English is a claim both of
specificity AND veridicality, I can see that. You lose the guarantee of
veridicality with {le}. Yet I see no compelling reason why someone would
want to trick you by using {le} to refer to something different enough
from the {le} description that it would cause you to infer the wrong
referent. You seem to be making a big deal of what the literal meanings
are of {le} and {lo}, but you seem to be creating problems with their
conventional usage where none actually exist, because their default
contexts carry the presupposition that you will not try to mislead your
listener about that to which you are referring. I certainly would not have
THOUGHT that that was an unreasonable assumption myself. You claim that
the default context confuses you about what {le} refers to, and then you
solve this problem by creating a new default context that confuses other
people regarding what {lo} refers to. Six of one and half a dozen of the
other.

 >
> Hence, in the context in which we are in a room with a cat and a small
> dog, {le mlatu} may refer to either or both.

I think this statement makes it very clear that your default context for
interpreting {le} and {lo} referents is radically different from that of
most other Lojbanists. You seem to be trying to justify this difference on
the grounds that your interpretation is more consistent with the literal
meaning of {le} and {lo}. I just don't agree with that. I don't give a
damn about the English language or English translations for this purpose,
either. It is simply that on pragmatic grounds alone, I would have great
difficulty trying to justify using a non-veridical descriptor with the
kind of rampant licenciousness that seems to scare you off using {le}
more often. The non-veridicality of {le} seems really only to be there to
enable you to use figurative language more easily in Lojban, as well as to
indicate that you might be mistaken, on occasion, about the identity of
something specific that you wish to discuss with your listener.
Commonsense and sympathy with your listener are necessary to use {le}
clearly, as they are necessary for clear communication in any other aspect
of any language. But to be left in the dark about what {le} refers to,
when the literal meaning of the description is veridically consistent with
likely candidates, seems far more skepical than I could possibly warrant.

 > > As I say, Lojban is weird. > >

I agree, but I'm still not so sure you're not making it much more weird
than it perhaps needs to be.

> Hence, when my friend says {lo mlatu}, the question comes down to what
> mechanism we are using to determine veridicality in the conversation?

But if your friend says {le mlatu} there will be the corresponding
question of what mechanism you are using to determine designations in the
conversation. Basic veridicality, with certain commonsensical side
constraints such as what I have already discussed, seems only logical.

> Finally, I should note what John says in Chapter 6.2:
>
>     In all descriptions with ``le'', the listener is presumed to
>     either know what I have in mind or else not to be concerned at
>     present (perhaps I will give more identifying details later).

I think this is excellent confirmation of what I'm saying. You don't need
to be in the dark about {le} because it should only be used when you will
know what the speaker does have in mind for a referent in the first
place, or at least when you will know that you won't have to worry about
what it is if you haven't got it quite yet. Although this latter
requirement is not necessitated by the refgrammar, it is a compulsory
part of all human communication. Any concerns that you have about what a
{le} description could refer to, shouldn't be a problem under the correct
use of {le} by someone who actually cares about communication rather
than simply trying to bewilder you.

Finally, I do not seriously expect anything I say here today to
convince you, since you have obviously survived the argument of a great
many other people before me. At least, I hope, we have clarified our own
views to each other, as well as to the other people who will read this
message.

In the meantime, a'o ko gleki lobypli

Geoff