[YG Conlang Archives] > [jboske group] > messages [Date Index] [Thread Index] >
la and cusku di'e
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.
Right. But the same applies to {lo'ei}. We need context.
Suppose there are 6 cups on the table: two are clean and
empty, two are filled with tea, and two have some leftover
traces of tea.
If I ask you to bring me "the cups with tea", what should
you do? It depends on the context. If I want them to
offer them to someone to drink, then only the two filled with
tea will do. If I want them because I'm going to wash them,
then the four that are not clean will be the ones "with tea".
Similarly, which continents or places "have lions" depends
on the context. Are we talking about where lions in the
wild live? Then only Africa "has lions". But for other
purposes, Iran has lions living in it too. Mr Lion is
sometimes in Iran. Mr Tea is in four of the cups for
some purposes, and it is in only two of the cups for other
purposes.
The important point is: When I say {lo'e cinfo cu xabju
le friko}, does that by itself exclude the possibility
of {lo'e cinfo cu xabju lo drata}? Is there only one place
where {lo'e broda}, for any broda, can live? John seems to
be saying that with CLL {lo'e}, {lo'e broda} can only live
in one place. {lo'e cinfo} cannot be male and female,
{lo'e remna} cannot live in Europe and in Australia.
But that's not {loi'e}, is it?
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.
Yes, we agree. I don't think {lo'e} should be about statistics.
> 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.
Ok. I should have said: "Surely {da kalte loi'e cinfo} can
be true (in the right context), can't it?". John says that
{da kalte lo'e cinfo} just makes no sense.
mu'o mi'e xorxes
_________________________________________________________________
Get faster connections�-- switch to�MSN Internet Access!
http://resourcecenter.msn.com/access/plans/default.asp