[YG Conlang Archives] > [jboske group] > messages [Date Index] [Thread Index] >
On Fri, 13 Dec 2002, And Rosta wrote: > I will essay a full reply later. > > In the meantime, though, I would ask what accommodation is made for > people who see the prototype as basic, and who see different dogs as > different avatars of Dog? This is a meaningless statement. We agree that lo'e gerku is a single, and Mr. Dog is a single. The question is how the speaker arrived at the qualities of it. Therefore, the "Mr. Dog" reading is redundant to whatever Nick's dealing with which you think is not "Mr. Dog". Let me know if I made absolutely no sense and I'll re-express it in Lojban. > The stuff about myopic singularization and squinting is meant to show > how if your starting point is a many-membered extension, you can work > your way to the single prototype. But I think lo'e should just mean that > single prototype. It will thereby cater to those who take prototypes to > be basic, and those who don't can apply squinting to get to the > prototype. (Very possibly I hadn't made this clear enough, but that > was partly because I had been so unsuccessful in explaining the > notion of prototype-as-basic.) > > In contrast, you want to insist on squinting as intrinsic to lo'e, insisting > that lo'e broda can only be the product of squinting -- i.e. a derived > rather than primitive concept. > > I see this as an unwarranted metaphysical bias. Which leaves the meaning too loose. Look at the different ways to arrive at a single entity: they are too different to represent with a single cmavo. In fact, we have two cmavo to play with, so let's select the two most useful which are also close enough to the corpus, and assign them to lo'e and le'e, and be done with it. -- jipno se kerlo re mei re mei degji kakne