[YG Conlang Archives] > [jboske group] > messages [Date Index] [Thread Index] >
Xod: > On Thu, 24 Oct 2002, And Rosta wrote: > > > > 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 > > "is innately capable of being innately capable of"? That either adds > nothing, or adds a truck's worth of wiggle room > > 1. nu'o citka lo remna > 2. ka'e citka lo remna I meant ca'a/ka'e in the Adamic sense of ca'ai/ka'ei. But be that as it may, what I was trying to express was: 1. actually is disposed to eat people 2. potentially but not actually is disposed to eat people The first is ca'a disposed and the second is nu'o disposed. > > > 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 > > tu'o is a secret token understood only by the initiates of the jboske > inner circle, to which I have not been initiated I'll see what's on the wiki page for tu'o & make additions if necessary. Nothing goes on in secret of course; it just flashes by amid torrents of messages so that only the very attentive notice it. --And.