[YG Conlang Archives] > [jboske group] > messages [Date Index] [Thread Index] >
At 08:24 PM 12/13/02 +0100, Lionel Vidal wrote:
lojbab: > Therefore squinting is a predication, with an additional place indicating > the method of singularization. We can either decide that 1) lo'e is one > particular kind of squinting, or 2) that it is a vague (zo'e) kind of > squinting, unless a restrictive phrase is attached which indicates the > kind of squinting. I like the point 2 very much: which concrete form do you think the restrictive phrase should take?
I was thinking BAI + sumti: ga'a or ku'u could indicate subjectivity at the individual or cultural level, ja'i or ma'i a standard or reference frame, ji'i, le'a, possibly a few others could fit some purposes. I haven't worked out the details, but I suspect that we have sufficient infrastructure to handle most varieties
> le'e prizes subjectivity,
> and presumes that the observer is looking at the prototype of a limited
> set, choosing to exclude any outliers that do not fit his prototype.
But in that case, isn't {le'e} only {lo'e} with a specific restrictive
phrase? It would be a pity that both semantics have such overlap.
lo'e cinfo applies to all lions, though the method of squinting might end up reducing the set being generalized from. le'e cinfo pretty much assumes that you are generalizing subjectively over an in mind subset of lions. You could probably specify a set of relative phrases to restrict lo'e to a le'e-like meaning. But if you think about stereotyping it is precisely when we DON'T want to think about how we are squinting that we stereotype.
lojbab -- lojbab lojbab@hidden.email Bob LeChevalier, President, The Logical Language Group, Inc. 2904 Beau Lane, Fairfax VA 22031-1303 USA 703-385-0273 Artificial language Loglan/Lojban: http://www.lojban.org