[YG Conlang Archives] > [jboske group] > messages [Date Index] [Thread Index] >
Jordan: > On Sat, Dec 07, 2002 at 11:40:02PM -0000, And Rosta wrote: > > Jordan: > > > On Sat, Dec 07, 2002 at 11:05:23AM -0000, And Rosta wrote: > > > > Even on the subjective/local squinting view, if I am fixated > > > > on one American girl in particular, and subjectively end up seeing > > > > something heavily coloured by her when I squint away all intermerko > > > > differences, then there is no basis for arguing that I am talking > > > > about le'e merko, since the input to my squinting is lo'i merko, > > > > not le'i merko > > > > > > I think there is a basis: (i) you have a particular group of things > > > (in this case containing only 1 element) in mind when you start the > > > squinting, which suggests an e-gadri. > > > > e-gadri are +specific; "in mind" is only a gloss. +specific = > > referential = truth conditions can be determined only once the > > reference has been identified. So in the scenario I intended to > > describe, I have this American girl in mind in the sense that > > I am preoccupied with her, but not in the sense that I am > > referring to her; I am not myopically singularizing a subset > > of Americans that contains only her > > I disagree. I think you *are* in fact referring to her. However, > I think actually you may just be describing your example poorly, > in which case see below > > > > (ii) your squinting is based > > > on actual existing creatures (in this case only one), instead of > > > just the general concept "merkypre". > > > > You misunderstand the scenario I intend to describe. My squinting > > is based on the general concept "merkypre", but on the general > > concept "merkypre" as subjectively represented in my own mind > > (in a subjective, local squinting version) > > Ok. So what you actually mean, is that in this hypothetical > situation, to *you* it is objective, and thus lo'e makes sense? > This makes sense, but I had presumed you would've taken this level > of subjectivity for granted and that there would be no need to > debate it. (what's the attitudinal for "duh"?) I think it might be helpful to return to the example of the car dwindling towards the horizon, since we can then separate out issues of subjectivity from issues of lo'e. In my experiential reality, the car dwindles. But I know that that is a reality that people with other perspectives will not share. If I take a more global, perspective-neutral view, I would instead describe the situation as "the car moved far away from me" or suchlike. > However, this doesn't justify misuse of lo'e which deliberately > ignores strong evidence to contrary. For example, if you had met > thousands of merkypre, in addition to being exposed to various > aspects of merkypre kulnu etc etc, and then, thinking of that one > girl say "lo'e merkypre cu ninmu" you are not speaking truth (or > properly using gadri---actually in this example the proper gadri > is "le", but you get the point (which makes sense, again, with the > truth of "le'e merkypre cu nelci zoizo. baseball .zo." but falsehood > of the same with lo'e)). I had thought that *this* was what was > meant by local squinting (at least in xorxes' view) Your certitude about 'misuse' and 'truth' as it pertains to squinting is unfounded. We have no theory or logic that allows us to deduce the outcome of myopic singularization. I feel as though I've exhausted my abilities to get you to understand and am merely repeating myself. Hopefully somebody else can do a better job of explaining. > > > (iii) you should be able to > > > make these generalizations about these creatures without needing > > > to commit yourself to claiming they are members of lo'i merkypre, > > > and le'e satisfies this (lo'e me le). The input to your squinting > > > is not neccesarily lo'i merkypre as you claim. it is one thing > > > which you happen to think is a member of lo'i merkypre (i.e. it's > > > le'i merkypre). (iv) Furthermore, taking only 1 member of lo'i > > > merkypre as input is not sufficent to make a generalization (this > > > one isn't actually circular, even though it sounds that way---I > > > mean the word 'generalization' itself, not as in lo'e). > > > > I understand your reasons, but I think they fail to apprehend the > > cognitive scenario I had intended, namely that one's perspective > > on lo'i broda may be subjective > > If you meant it the way it is now sounding, then I think you're > being extreemly trivial. Obviously I may say "lo'e merkypre cu > palci" and *think* i'm being objective and truthful, when in fact > it may not (zo'o or may...) be the case Have another think, given my repeated attempt to explain subjectivity. > > > (v) deciding > > > that lo'e is global, and le'e is global of a particular group of > > > entities (lo'e me le---i.e. local) allows us to easily specify which > > > in normal discourse. > > > > I already acknowledged this. But by insisting that it *must* work > > this way, you deny the validity of subjectivity. That should be > > your prerogative as a speaker, but should not be imposed on all > > speakers > > Yes, you've acknoweledge this. But, you also subsequently claimed > that there was "no basis for arguing ...". Forgive me if I assumed > you had simply forgot There is indeed "no basis for arguing that I am talking about le'e merko, since the input to my squinting is lo'i merko, not le'i merko". The dispute is whether one is allowed to squint at lo'i merko from a particular angle. > However, I think you're just being unclear on exactly how you define > "local squinting" (which I think may be different than xorxes) I think he and I see things the same way. That is, nothing he has said makes me think we differ. I informally define local squinting as done from a vantage point or perspective that one knows to be subjective -- i.e. not shared by people in general. --And.