[YG Conlang Archives] > [jboske group] > messages [Date Index] [Thread Index] >
I must apologize for having sent off a reply to Nick saying pretty
much exactly what Jorge had already said in this message.
This is what comes of an excessively high traffic with an
excessively good signal-to-noise ratio. So many people are
saying so much that I need to listen to that I lose concentration.
--And.
> A very entertaining dialogue, Nick. Mind if I butt in?
>
> >"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
>
> But it is. Mr Bird can fly, but he does not fly on every
> occasion. In particular, he does not fly when he is being
> penguin. Can Nick walk? Yes. Can he walk when he is sitting
> down? No, he can't walk when he is sitting down. Can Mr Bird
> fly when he is being penguin? No, he can't fly when he is
> being penguin. Mr Bird can (not fly), but saying that he
> cannot fly would be wrong
>
> >For if you are seeking Mr Bird, (1) would rule out a penguin as
> >being an avatar of Mr Bird."
>
> Not all avatars of Mr Bird fly, just as not all avatars of
> Mr Nick walk. If I'm seeking Nick, should I worry if I find
> a Nick that is not in a position to walk, when I was told that
> he can walk?
>
> >"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."
>
> If by {loi cipni} you mean {pisu'o loi cipni}, then there
> are lots of them, not just one, so it is not like Mr Bird
>
> If you mean {piro loi cipni} then yes, there is only one,
> but it is much, much heavier than Mr Bird, who at most is
> as heavy as an ostrich on some occasions, hardly ever
> heavier than that. {piro loi cipni} OTOH must weigh hundreds
> of tons
>
> >***
> >
> >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
>
> It is true that JCB spoke of mass as something different than
> our {loi}. He called our {loi} "set", and never gave the word
> "set" to the mathematical set concept. Loglan "set" became Lojban
> "mass", and Loglan "mass", I contend, is Lojban {lo'e}. There
> is nothing like Lojban "set" in Loglan
>
> mu'o mi'e xorxes
>
>
>
> _________________________________________________________________
> Help STOP SPAM with the new MSN 8 and get 2 months FREE*
> http://join.msn.com/?page=features/junkmail
>
>
> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
> jboske-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
>
>
>
> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
>
>
>
>