[YG Conlang Archives] > [jboske group] > messages [Date Index] [Thread Index] >
xorxes:
> la djan cusku di'e
>
> >And Rosta scripsit:
> >
> > > * "I like chocolate" -- "I like the chocolate exemplar", "If you
> > > abstract away from all different instances of chocolate, what you
> > > end up with is liked by me"
> > > * "This depicts a snake" -- "This depicts the snake exemplar",
> > > "If you abstract away from all different instances of snakes,
> > > what you end up with is depicted by this."
> > > This is the meaning I intend for {loi'e} and {lei'e} to have:
> > > mi nelci loi'e cakla
> > > ti pixra loi'e since
> >
> >I think this is perfectly consistent with CLL lo'e. lo'ei is clearly
> >not, since lo'ei cinfo lives in Iran as well as Africa, whereas lo'e
> >cinfo lives (I am told) solely in Africa. (Lo'e remna doesn't have a
> >continent of residence, though.)
>
> Desn't {loi'e cinfo} sometimes live in Iran? I would have said
> it does
But even the generic lion, the model of lionkind, can be said to
live in Iran. "Mr Lion, usually he lives in Africa, but sometimes
he lives in Iran". As with loi, it's hard to see hard and fast
truthconditions here.
Of course it is not true that "every typical lion lives in Iran"
or even that "not every typical lion lives in Africa". And that's
a reason for using "ro fadni cinfo" to say that sort of thing --
to make quasistatistical claims that have some sort of truthconditional
status.
> >If you think that loi'e can be used in some sentence that is inconsistent
> >with CLL lo'e, I'd like to see it
>
> Surely {da kalte loi'e cinfo} is true, isn't it?
The problem is that in the world as we usually conceive it to be,
there is not just one lion. So {da kalte loi'e cinfo} is simply
not a claim about the world as we usually conceive it. It's a
claim about a version of the world as we usually conceive it, but
where there is just one lion. In that world, {da kalte loi'e
cinfo} is true iff someone hunts the one lion.
--And.