[YG Conlang Archives] > [jboske group] > messages [Date Index] [Thread Index] >
Adam:
> (And:)
> >>"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
>
> I don't understand this. If you examine every lion separately,
> but hold that they are the same individual, do you hold that
> any property of any one of the is a property of the one
> individual? If so, then why not just say 'lo cinfo' and be
> clear about it?
Each day I look at lo speni be mi; I elect to (permanently, in this
instance) hold that these daily speni are the same individual.
Now, suppose that one Tuesday lo mi speni fails to complain about
my untidiness; this is most atypical, so I don't consider failing
to complain about my untidiness to be a property of loi'e mi
speni. OTOH, if on the same day lo me speni reads _Being and
nothingness_, and on no other day does lo me speni do so, I
consider having read B&N to be a property of loi'e me speni.
Myopic singularization is a matter of world-view, but sometimes,
if I want to communicate with you, then I may have to drop my
world-view and take up yours, and hence say 'lo cinfo'.
> I think that it quite inapt to examine a specific lion and hold
> that its properties are the properties of all lions/Mr. Lion, in
> every circumstance. To use 'l[oe]i'e' you need a gestalt
> perspective on the entire set, and the underlying set for 'loi'e'
> is still 'lo'i'. You could abstract from an individual lion to
> 'lei'e cinfo' of course, but in such a case you might as well say
> 'le cinfo'
The cardinality of lo'i cinfo is partly an empirical question
and partly a philosophical question about the criteria for
distinguishing one cinfo from another. If we're going to
discuss lions profitably then either we'll have to agree
on a shared philosophy or at least we'll need a good
understanding of each other's philosophy.
> >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
There may be contexts where I see no world outside Iran. so
there lo'i cinfo is perforce the set of all Iranian lions.
If I realize that you do see a world beyond Iran, or that
you cannot understand my worldview, then in the interests
of communication I will try to adopt your worldview.
As I've already said, lo'e/loi'e is somewhere where things
start to get interestingly whorfian.
--And.