[YG Conlang Archives] > [jboske group] > messages [Date Index] [Thread Index] >
pc: > a.rosta@hidden.email writes: > << > > They mean "In a version of the world conceptualized in such > a way that lo'i/le'i broda has only a single member, the > single member of lo'i/le'i broda is...". > > I can appreciate that this may not fill you with a desire to > embrace them in your usage (though it does have that effect > on me), but I would hope at least that my understanding of > the two gadri is now clear. > > >> > Ignotum per ignotius. The contrary-to-fact conditionis too remote > from the real world for me to have any idea what follows (cf. "If > Socrates were a seventeenth century Irish washerwoman,...") > > xod > << > I don't see how this is any clearer than the CLL's explanation. I suppose > you're referring to the infamous Mister Rabbit here. > >> > There were times that I actually thought I understood some versions > of Mr. Rabbit; I have no such illusions about this (or about most of > them, now). Fair enough, but on this point I become a xodite: when applied to classes that appear to be non-singleton (with 0 or more than 1 members), lo'e/le'e force us into a new world-view. In such a case it is perfectly legitimate for you say "I have no inkling what this means" or "I have an inkling, but when I think it through it just doesn't stand up", but part of its appeal is precisely that it coerces a novel world-view onto the underlying 'facts' of the universe. --And.