[YG Conlang Archives] > [jboske group] > messages [Date Index] [Thread Index] >
la adam cusku di'e
>We are examining a particular situation usually, not the
>world in general. Of course, in the absence of context,
>we turn our attention to the world in general, and then
>start thinking in terms of typicality and habituality.
>But {lo'e} is for particular situations too and mainly.
Are you saying that given a clear context, 'lo'i cinfo'
could mean the set of all iranian lions? I think that this
is wrong. When you use an o-gadri, you are explicitly
referencing the entire set, with no context or otherwise
limiting the set.
I'm not saying {lo'i cinfo} will be reduced to that, but in
a given situation, the _relevant_ lions will be the lions
relevant to that situation. The weight of the others would
be reduced if you were doing some kind of average over the
extension. If you find yourself about to be eaten by a lion,
for example, then Mr Lion will be preponderantly if not
exclusively that one lion. Mr Lion is there with you in that
instance.
But I agree with And that probably everyone will have a
different idea on how and when they choose to apply myopic
singularization. I have not found an instance yet where I
can't interpret {lo'ei} as {loi'e} and get the same result,
so I'm happy with the definition of {lo'e} as conceptualizing
the situation as all members of lo'i broda in one individual.
mu'o mi'e xorxes
_________________________________________________________________
Unlimited Internet access for only $21.95/month.� Try MSN!
http://resourcecenter.msn.com/access/plans/2monthsfree.asp