[YG Conlang Archives] > [jboske group] > messages [Date Index] [Thread Index] >
And Rosta scripsit:
> I don't concede that we have a proper logic for masses. Specifically,
> I don't concede that it has been established to our general satisfaction
> that masses *necessarily* inherit properties of their constituents,
> though I do concede that my intuitions are that they at least usually
> do.
I think it's totally fact-based, and can't be inferred at all, so there
is not only no "proper logic", there can't be. Being starchy can be
extrapolated from rice to a grain of rice, or the other way about: but
being of molecular dimensions doesn't extrapolate from a water molecule to
water, and being wet doesn't extrapolate (intrapolate?) from water to
a water molecule.
That's just the way it is.
> http://www.angelfire.com/dc/1spy/Amerasia.html
Cool story: I knew parts of it only.
> Me & xorxes opine that to determine the truth or falsity of these
> examples requires a further metaphysical context not inherent in
> lo'e. For example, if I know only one American girl, or if I am
> fixated on one in particular, then when I do my squinting, her
> features may persevere as all other Americans abstract away. And lo,
> she, lo'e merko, may indeed go out with me (-- sorry Nick!
> nobody can compete with my sexual magnetism...).
That, however, makes hash of the in-mind vs. actual distinction present
in lo'e vs. le'e. Talking about lo'e merko binds you to the truth
as much as talking of lo merko does (of course, you can be in error,
or lying, or ...).
> He is a lecturer, but without [...].
Also, to be sure, without the salary.
--
John Cowan jcowan@hidden.email www.ccil.org/~cowan www.reutershealth.com
"If I have seen farther than others, it is because I was standing on
the shoulders of giants."
--Isaac Newton