[YG Conlang Archives] > [jboske group] > messages [Date Index] [Thread Index] >
xod: > --- In jboske@yahoogroups.com, "And Rosta" <a.rosta@l...> wrote: > > xod: > > > On Wed, 18 Dec 2002, And Rosta wrote: > > > > > > > I think Jorge & I share an understanding of Unique. It is > space-limited > > > > if space-limitedness is a property of brodahood, but it can be in > > > > many different places at once. LE-unique cipni is in many places at > > > > once. Now, since being in many places at once is a rather strange > > > > property for an individual to have (e.g. Nick can't be in many > places > > > > at once), I may find it weird to see the class of birds as an > > > > individual bird, and so not say "LE-unique cipni": but that's my > > > > decision to make as a Lojban speaker > > > > > > This discussion is difficult enough without the introduction of > redundant > > > or even semi-redundant terms. We should introduce new terms > sparingly, and > > > only when really needed, to minimize our brain pain. "Unique", I > take it, > > > means "Mister"? > > > > I would have stuck with Mister, but Nick & John say that to them, > > Mr Bird is the massification of all birds -- as if you gather them > > all together and mash them up till the individual birds are > > unrecognizable. Since their view is a long-standing one in the > > lojbo community, I can't just say they're plain wrong. So I use > > a new term that hopefully I can claim ownership of > > So you're saying Mister == Prototype? Your example sentences for > "unique" sure seemed like prototypes to me. I think we should set aside Mister, because in recent discussion it has been applied to each of the following notions, which I would like to see kept distinct. 1. substance (formerly called by me 'massifier'). For example, take all apples in the world and mash them up, or otherwise ignore the boundaries between them that distinguish one from another. You end up with the 'substance' of all apple(s). (As Nick said, linguists call this the 'Universal Grinder'.) 2. prototype. You survey the population of all apples, possibly in a culturally or cognitively biased way, and select the properties that seem to typify apples. Imagine an apple with all these properties. It's the prototype/prototypical apple. 3. unique. Either (a) suppose that there is just one apple, which can miraculously be in many different places at the same time. This is the unique apple. If you see a bowl containing five apples, then the unique apple has somehow managed to appear in the bowl in five places at once. Or (b) look at every apple separately, and ignore their differences, including their spatial location: since you no longer see any differences, you are seeing just a single apple, the same apple each time you look. (b) is what *I* understand by 'squinting'. (NB uniques work better with things that aren't in many different places at the same time; e.g. it would be easier to see the Superbowl (an important annual sporting event, I think) as a unique, the same individual that reappears once a year.) --And.