[YG Conlang Archives] > [jboske group] > messages [Date Index] [Thread Index] >
Jordan:
> On Thu, Dec 19, 2002 at 11:40:27AM -0500, Invent Yourself wrote:
> > On Thu, 19 Dec 2002, And Rosta wrote:
> > > To summarize:
> > > * We *do* need Unique
Let 'Unique' be a temporary name that we thankfully all understand,
until someone thinks of a better one.
> > I do not think that Unique glosses as "typical", so be aware that we are
> > breaking from the CLL
>
> No; all this means is that unique can't be "lo'e"
I agree, except that it has not been established (to my satisfaction)
that the logic of typicality statements ('The typical sheep is bred
for its wool', versus 'The typical sheep is described in this
document') is consistent with it being expressed by a gadri. If
it isn't, then the lo'e-form is freed up and made available for
Unique, whose broad range of potential usage covers lo'e examples
in CLL, as well as most prior lo'e/le'e usage.
> Now; here's my thing: I don't understand how this unique stuff
> makes any real sense. Basically the idea I'm hearing is that for
> "loi'e cipni" (or whatever it is) you take lo'i cipni and pretend
> there's only only one cipni. However I don't get what defines the
> characteristics of this one thing, and I don't think anyone has
> said anything about this. If the answer is "whatever the speaker
> wants",
What defines the characteristics of the one Jordan DeLong? (I
assume, perhaps incorrectly, that you are okay with there being
just one Jordan DeLong, ignoring any irrelevant namesakes.) I
don't know the answer, but I am happy to assume that there is an
answer, and to speak of the one Jordan DeLong on the basis of that
assumption. On the basis of a similar assumption one might speak
of the one bird.
I don't think anything *defines* the *characteristics* of lo-unique
cipni. The meaning of lo-unique defines what the referent is, but
it doesn't tell you what its characteristics are. Likewise, la-unique
Jordan DeLong defines the referent (the one and only Jordan DeLong),
but doesn't tell you what his characteristics are.
Anybody who rejects a worldview in which there is only one Jordan
would not use la-unique Jordan. Anybody who rejects a worldview
in which there is only one Bird would not use lo-unique Bird.
Some people might reject a worldview if they think it is objectively
false. Other people might reject a worldview only if they think
it gives us no insights into the world.
> then I think all this uniquification stuff is useless because
> it adds nothing to a simpler explaination of "whatever the speaker
> wants", and we'd actually want xorxes' "lo'ei" gadri which basically
> has the whatever-the-speaker-wants definition, as far as I understand
It was me that defined "lo'ei" as "xorxes's gadri", because I didn't
understand xorxes's gadri & didn't want it to mess up our understanding
of the gadri we did understand. But I have since realized that xorxes
was right to say that his gadri was the same as "loi'e". Hence I
consider "lo'ei" to be obsolete, though I have not updated the
relevant wiki pages.
--And.