[YG Conlang Archives] > [jboske group] > messages [Date Index] [Thread Index] >
Nick:
> "What if flying characterises some avatars and not others? I think we
> have three alternatives:
>
> 1. Mr Bird can fly: TRUE. Mr Bird cannot fly: FALSE
>
> 2. Mr Bird can fly: TRUE. Mr Bird cannot fly: TRUE
>
> 3. Mr Bird can fly: NA'I. Mr Bird cannot fly: NA'I
>
> In case (1), we have my statistical Median Bird, which is not your Mr
> Bird. For if you are seeking Mr Bird, (1) would rule out a penguin as
> being an avatar of Mr Bird."
>
> I don't like where you're going with this, but I will accept that
(1) is the correct alternative. When passerine, Mr Bird flies.
When penguinine, Mr Bird does not fly. Since Mr Bird therefore
flies some times, it is true that Mr Bird can fly and false that
Mr Bird cannot fly. We could say, though, that on some occasions
(viz when penguinine) Mr Bird cannot fly. But likewise a
sparrow cannot fly when it is asleep (I assume!) and likewise
Nick can speak Lojban, but not when he is asleep and not dreaming.
A penguin is an avatar of Mr Bird, but the criteria for avatarhood
involve inter alia resemblance to Mr Bird or some kind of part--
whole continuity. An avatar needn't be a perfect copy.
> "Case 2: I already have a word for your Mr Bird in my language. {loi
> cipni}. Like Mr Bird, it is a singularisation --- there's only one of
> them. Anything true of an individual bird is true of Mr Bird. When you
> talk to a penguin or to an albatross, you talk to Mr Bird."
This I have covered in another message where I say that loi is
the group of all birds, which is not Mr Bird.
> .... Case 3 is starting to look more attractive
>
> ***
>
> Somewhere along this line, I must have committed a grievous error. But
> our Forefathers spoke of Mr Bird as a mass, and masses make a lot more
> sense as a Trobriander basis of ontology than a lambda expression
>
> In yr recentmost long email, And, you may have already refuted part of
> this. And I can't believe lx.bird(x) really is the same as {loi cipni}.
> But out this email goes anyway..
I *think* (= uncertainly) that lx.bird(x) is "lo'e ka ce'u cipni"
which is not a bird but a set of criteria for defining birdhood.
Our Forefathers spoke of Mr Bird as a mass, but there is loads of
confusion here. Lojbo 'masses' are groups = logli 'sets'. The
notion of 'group' makes more sense for things that are naturally
individuable. For stuff that isn't naturally individuable,
the notion of 'mass' is more appropriate, but is not really distinct
from Mr Stuff.
Thus:
naturally individuable: Group of Things v. Mr Thing
not naturally individuable: Mass of Stuff
--And.