[YG Conlang Archives] > [jboske group] > messages [Date Index] [Thread Index] >
Xod: > On Wed, 23 Oct 2002, And Rosta wrote: > > > Xod: > > > On Wed, 23 Oct 2002, Jorge Llambias wrote: > > > > Yes, I don't mind disagreeing with CLL > > > > > > I haven't yet seen an explanation of what's so broken with the CLL > > > definition or usage of lo'e > > > > It's not broken. It's incomplete/vague/underspecified > > That's the nature of the idea of "typical". What part of this bothers you > and Jorge? Do you want to detach lo'e from "typical"? Do you want to give > "typical" a firmer logical footing? Or what? A firmer logical footing, a better understanding of the truth conditions, that sort of thing. The keyword "typical" and the textbook examples give us a kind of quick sketch of what the meaning is, but we are trying to draw up the architectural blueprint, as it were. Not merely out of anality, but also because in the end someone always innocently asks a question that cannot be answered without the blueprint. --And.