[YG Conlang Archives] > [jboske group] > messages [Date Index] [Thread Index] >
Jordan:
> On Fri, Dec 06, 2002 at 01:06:56AM -0500, John Cowan wrote:
> > And Rosta scripsit:
> > > It depends what "explain {le'e}" means. In earlier discussion I
> > > explained how the meaning "stereotypical" was arrived at, but
> > > argued that it was inconsistent with the regular relation between
> > > o-gadri and e-gadri and that the meaning {le'e} should have is
> > > clear but other than "stereotypical".
> >
> > CLL 6.5 explicitly debunks this term as only semi-appropriate
> > In fact le'e = lo'e me le, the result of myopically singularizing
> > the critters you have in mind
>
> This works for me, and appears to be consistent with existing usage
> and the book
>
> Does this not also implicate, though, that lo'e must be "global
> squinting" in order for le'e to have any use? (because le'e
> essentially is the "local squinting")
>
> (this supports that lo'e merkypre cu nelci zoizo. baseball .zo. is
> false, but le'e of the same is true, as would be expected under the
> very high-level definitions of the gadri given in the book)
I'm not sure if our messages are crossing or mine are getting
delayed again, but I've already posted a message pointing out
that one can squint locally at lo'i broda, which is not the
same as squinting locally at le'i broda. In the same message I
pointed out that the distinction between objective and subjective
perspectives generalizes beyond the case of lo'e.
I'm going to claim Lojbab and xod for my side, even if they aren't
reading or understanding this thread or even if they think they
disagree with me!
--And.