[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: le/lo

You puzzle me:

   ... pragmatics
   seems to dictate that you will tend to describe a cat as a cat.

I am a native English speaker and listener.  To me, you are saying
that you will tend to _avoid_ describing that which is *not* a cat
as if it were a cat.  I understand your saying `a cat' as meaning,
that which really is a cat.

I understand you are saying that when you refer to `a cat', you do
*not* want to say, `something that I am describing as a cat, but may
be something else.'

   ... 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.

Exactly.  I can only conclude from this that when you say `a cat', you
really mean a cat, *not* a small dog.

   ... 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.

Well ... that is the defined use of {le}; veridicality is for {lo}.
It may be extraordinary, but that how {le} and {lo} have been defined
for some years now.  Specifically, {le} is non-veridical.  Here is the
list of LE cmavo:

    le        LE    the described
                      non-veridical descriptor: the one(s) described as ...

    le'e      LE    the stereotypical
                      non-veridical descriptor: the stereotype of those
                      described as ...

    le'i      LE    the set described
                      non-veridical descriptor: the set of those described
                      as ..., treated as a set

    lei       LE    the mass described
                      non-veridical descriptor: the mass of individual(s)
                      described as ...

    lo        LE    the really is
                      veridical descriptor: the one(s) that really is(are)
                      ...

    lo'e      LE    the typical
                      veridical descriptor: the typical one(s) who really
                      is(are) ...

    lo'i      LE    the set really is
                      veridical descriptor: the set of those that really are
                      ..., treated as a set

    loi       LE    the mass really is
                      veridical descriptor: the mass of individual(s) that
                      is(are) ...

You go on to say,

   ... 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 are making a false presumption that a reference to something
`described as' is a trick.  That is not necessarily the case.

For example, someone might say, `this discussion is a quagmire'.  The
person is not trying to trick you.  She is using a metaphor.  She is
saying

    this discussion is not a veridical quagmire, but I am describing it
    as such, to indicate resemblances.

Indeed, I use metaphor frequently, as do my friends, and not as a
trick, but as a way of expressing truth.

   ... The non-veridicality of {le} seems really only to be there to
   enable you to use figurative language more easily in Lojban, ...

Yes; I don't know the designers' intents, but this is certainly one
use.  And I do know that JCB, while he did not invent the le/lo
distinction, did make a great fuss about how Loglan should make it
easier to express metaphor.



   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.

Yes, you are correct.

   .... Basic veridicality, with certain commonsensical side
   constraints such as what I have already discussed, seems only
   logical.

No, since what you refer to as "Basic veridicality" is handled by
{lo}, and specifically *not* by {le}.  For {le}, veridicality is *not*
the measure!

   ... 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.

Knowing the specified referent does not tell me the referent is true.

I think we both understand a person who describes this conversation as
a quagmire, but that does not mean that the application of the word
`quagmire' is veridical.  It is a `described as'.

And some people would say a back and forth set of messages is more
like an exchange of letters than a conversation in which people talk
face to face; they would think of my use of the word `conversation' as
a `described as' rather than as an instance of a true category.

Of course another person might say that his context includes only
those aspects of the concept `quagmire' that are veridical in this
conversation.  In this case, he should use {lo} or {lu'e lo}.

Your default assumptions in English, as indicated by:

    ... you will tend to describe a cat as a cat.

    If she really has two cats, there will be strong pragmatic
    pressure on her to describe them as cats.

    Basic veridicality, with certain commonsensical side constraints
    such as what I have already discussed, seems only logical.

suggest to me that you are misleading yourself and others when you use
`that which I describe as'.  It appears to me you more likely mean
`that which really is'.

--

    Robert J. Chassell               bob@rattlesnake.com
    25 Rattlesnake Mountain Road     bob@ai.mit.edu
    Stockbridge, MA 01262-0693 USA   (413) 298-4725