[YG Conlang Archives] > [engelang group] > messages [Date Index] [Thread Index] >

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

Re: [engelang] Myopic singularization

?  Both extension and set imply individuation: the extension of a predicate are the things of which the predicate is true, a set is a bunch of things considered together.  A mass is a set acting as a unit, that is, satisfying a predicate collectively.  WTF is a myopic singular?  Means and averages are not things but properties of sets as are prototypes generally.  Most significantly, they don't have properties (i.e., are not in the extensions of predicates).  After a couple decades, this notion still doesn't make any sense, although  you. Mike, have forced & into a couple of claims that -- had he stuck with them -- were almost intelligible.  Alas, he dropped back to  the sort of stuff you offer here.  I thought maybe Cowan had something to offer, but apparently not.


From: Mike S. <maikxlx@gmail.com>
To: engelang@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Monday, September 24, 2012 5:37 PM
Subject: Re: [engelang] Myopic singularization

 
On Mon, Sep 24, 2012 at 9:38 AM, John E Clifford <kali9putra@hidden.email> wrote:
Explain to me again how these MS differ from L-sets or just bunches.  I don't see it from this.

My best guess: An L-set is the extension of a predicate with no individualization implied.  It's more similar to John Cowan's massification of bears than it is to a myopic singular.  A myopic singular is a blurring of individuals into a single prototype or a mean average of some sort.  For masses, presumably it's some sort of homogenization.  However you describe it, it's a function from an extension or from an intension to something more abstract than either.

(On a side note:  I would like to acknowledge And's and Jorge's messages on "la sma", but I am going to wait until I can sum up my thoughts a little better than I can at the moment.)

--
co ma'a mke

Xorban blog: Xorban.wordpress.com
My LL blog: Loglang.wordpress.com