[YG Conlang Archives] > [jboske group] > messages [Date Index] [Thread Index] >
Xod:
> 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
= ca'a jinzi kakne tu'o du'u citka lo remna
> > 2 = ka'e citka lo'ei remna
= ka'e jinzi kakne tu'o du'u citka lo 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
Right. But the problem was that it was not necessarily the case that
citka lo remna. But I answered my own question, above.
--And.