[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, And Rosta wrote:
> > > > Xod:
> > > > > 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
> This will be the fourth time I ask you guys how you intend to sharpen the
> *subjective* notion of lo'e with these gymnastics -- plus Nick's attempt
> at getting an answer. I have to conclude that you aren't, in fact, really
> doing anything but detaining lo'e and infecting it with an alien fungus
> which will to the crude palate taste exactly like "typically", but under
> scrutiny reveal its inauthenticity
I like the metaphor!
I'd say the state of play is that we all know the crude taste of
"typically", and we're trying to discover an exact chemical formula
that will yield the crude taste of "typically". It's hard to call
it "inauthentic", because all that is authentic is that crude
taste.
That said, most of the recent thread has concerned what I have called
{lo'ei} = {lo'e}-as-used-by-xorxes. This does not have the crude taste
of "typically", which is why I have never accepted the "{lo'ei} = {lo'e}"
equation. So in my mind there are 3 concurrent issues:
1. What does {lo'ei} mean?
2. What should {lo'e} mean?
3. How do we make logically-robust generic statements (about the typical X)?
These issues need to be kept separate, conceptually even if not in
different threads.
--And.