[YG Conlang Archives] > [jboske group] > messages [Date Index] [Thread Index] >
And what's galling me the most is that there are, what, five different debates going on at the same time? And one human being is meant to tune in to all of them? And extract sense out at the end? And this is helping?!
Well vented. Now then.Masses and groups are different. Masses are basic by definition. loi stays a mass. Groups get a LAhE cmavo.
Anything overtly derived from a population gets a LAhE cmavo, because that explicitly signals derivation.
I reject And's conflation of Mode and Prototype: they are not the same, and to conflate them only exacerbates confusion, precisely because they are so similar. Prototype and Generic are pretty similar too; and both are similar to Mass; but we're not going to conflate them either.
Therefore, Statistical Singularisations go to LAhE. loi stays as the intermediate singularisation between subjective and objective: it is the prototype, the mental construct people use as a definition of a Kind. This accords with founder intent. It matches CLL (though so does Statistical Singularisation); and it probably doesn't break usage pre-Jorge too much. It also makes a satisfying partner to le'e: our common English understanding of 'stereotype' is as a mental construct, precisely as prototypes are. To make lo'e Statistical or Unique would compromise our intuition for stereotype.
I kind of get And's Unique; I just don't get the point of it. And, *please* give me either test phrases where the Unique claims something different from the Prototype and the Mass, or a sentence of English where the different cmavo would give a different rendering.
I don't get the point of it, but I do get that for it to work, it has to be basic. So no LAhE for it; it gets a gadri. And that gadri shall not be lo'ei, because we need something distinctive.
.... Shit, And sends a post on the same topic.So lau'a is what, a Kind? A generic? How is lo not non-specific, rather than specificity neutral? Feel free to answer, but for now I'm ignoring it.
The collectiviser is what would distinguish groups from masses? OK, we'll keep that. The paraphrase will be gumna or something like that: emphasis on jointless, whereas masses are an emphasis on sludge.
Average: I'm taking the derive statistical ones to LAhE, so I accept that. I still contend that by founder intent, lo'e shall be prototype, and prototypes are underived categories: they are not extrapolated from lo'i broda: they *define* lo'i broda.
Unique: You're allowing it be derived? Hey, you're the one who gets it; if you can like with it as a LAhE, that's OK by me.
... so we're mostly in agreement about the grid.You're claiming loi is a mass but lei is a group? You'll have to explain that some day, but not today.
You're refusal to count what we know is unique is still bogus to me, but if you want to think of la as Unique Named rather than Individual Named, go ahead.
Stereotype lies outside your paradigm. No surprise prototype would as well.
OK. We're not in agreement, but we are in compromise. Oh, and when the cmavo get assigned, believe me, they ain't gonna be lu'oi lu'ei lu'ai. There's nothing distinctive about them; they can't be learned.
---
DR NICK NICHOLAS. nickn@hidden.email
FRENCH & ITALIAN, UNIVERSITY OF MELBOURNE, AUSTRALIA.
In Athens, news spreads fast: they know everything as soon as it
happens,
sometimes before it happens, and often without it happening at all. --- Jean Psichari, _My Voyage_. http://www.opoudjis.net