[YG Conlang Archives] > [jboske group] > messages [Date Index] [Thread Index] >
On Thu, 24 Oct 2002, And Rosta wrote:
> pc:
> > xod@hidden.email writes:
> > <<
> >
> > > I certainly won't claim that my {lo'e nanmu} is "the average man".
> > > It is "men in general".
> >
> > What's the difference? Aren't their properties identical?
> >
> > >>
> > Well, no. The average man is 5'9" tall, say; man in general is not
> > any particular height. And so on through a mass of statistical
> > information. Man in general seems to have only generic properties --
> > being a mammal, bipedal, and the like. Xorxes {lo'e nanmu} does not
> > actually work too well for "man in general" even -- and is more
> > likely to be something acted upon than something acting -- or having
> > properties.
>
> How do we talk about:
>
> 1. A shark that is man-eating (even if it hasn't eaten a man)
> 2. A shark that isn't man-eating but maybe could be in exceptional
> circumstances (e.g. facing starvation).
>
> 1 = ca'a citka lo'ei remna
> 2 = ka'e citka lo'ei remna
The generalization applies to the shark, not the man. If the
abstract/typical/archetype/whatever/you-know-what-I-mean shark eats
people, that doesn't give you the ability to apply any sort of abstraction
or generalization to the man. Rest assured, the men that are eaten are lo
remna, and not Mr. Man. Only the tiniest fraction of people are eaten, not
the general Man in any sense at all.
--
Henry McCullers, an affable Plano, TX-area anti-Semite, praised the
Jewish people Monday for doing "a bang-up job" running the media.
"This has been such a great year for movies, and the new crop of fall
TV shows looks to be one of the best in years," McCullers said.
"And the cable news channels are doing a terrific job, too. Admittedly,
they're not reporting on the Jewish stranglehold on world finance,
but, hey, that's understandable."