[YG Conlang Archives] > [jboske group] > messages [Date Index] [Thread Index] >
xorxes:
> 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
Not to deny the relevance of context, but I don't entirely
agree with all of this.
A claim about {lo'ei} broda reduces to some claim about
{lo broda}. {lo broda} itself is less context-dependent. For
instance, it is certainly true that {lo cinfo cu xabju lai iran}.
OTOH, in your tea example, {re da kabri lo tcati} and
{vo da kabri lo tcati} could each be true, depending, as you
say on the contextually contingent criteria for deciding
whether something is se kabri.
> 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?
"Man has a nonretractible penis"
"Man lactates"
"Man does not both lactate and have a nonretractible penis"
"Man lactates and Man has a nonretractible penis"
These all seem true to me.
I think it fairly clear that {lo'e} was supposed to do generics.
Everything else that CLL and John say is an attempt to explicate
that. Since, as our discussions show, generics are tricky, John's
explicatory efforts have not been wholly successful, and shouldn't
be taken as the last word on {lo'e}.
In the light of this, I'm happy with the idea that lo'e = loi'e,
and that explicit claims about typicals and statistical norms can
be made using appropriate brivla.
> >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
Well, what is the right context? What state of affairs would
prevail in the world as we know it, such that we would claim
{da kalte loi'e cinfo}? I'd have thought that John might
accept that in that state of affairs {da kalte lo'e cinfo}
might also be appropriate.
Maybe that's too glib an answer. I'll try again.
"There is someone that hunts the one lion". Nothing wrong
with that, but if we're meaning it as a description of the
world in general as we know it, then it is perhaps inapt, for
in the process of abstracting away the differences between
lions, the fact that a few of them are hunted probably gets
lost. OTOH, if you examine every lion separately, but elect
to (temporarily) hold that they are the same individual, then
{da kalte loi'e cinfo} would be apt.
Hopefully you and John will agree with that, seeing as you
both say you're amenable to lo'e = loi'e.
--And.