[YG Conlang Archives] > [jboske group] > messages [Date Index] [Thread Index] >
Nick:
> 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
I think they're similar enough that there might be times when we
prefer not to be specific about which sort of typical we mean,
and it is enough to say "the Representative, arrived at by *some*
reasonably method/algorithm, ...".
But this is jumping the gun, because I am not yet persuaded that
typicals can be done by gadri, as I've said in other messages.
> 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 don't know if, after 3 earth days, this is still your view. But
we have not yet addressed the question of whether a typicality
*gadri* is logically broken.
> 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
See my "depicting a snake" post. I can repost if necessary.
> 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
The candidate was "loi'e". The gadri generally aren't very distinct
phonologically, are they?
But length considerations aside, I think that all gadri can be
reduced to LAhE plust 3 gadri to make the o/e/a distinction.
> ..... 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
"lau'a" = "lu'a lu'i su'o lo", which may reduce to "PA lu'i su'o".
I am provisionally withdrawing "lau'V" cmavo from current proposals.
> .... 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
I didn't claim that. Whatever loi and lei are, they should be the
same.
> 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
I don't understand, but I had thought that like {le}, {la} = {ro la}.
> 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
Personally, I find them MUCH easier to remember when the patterning
in the phonological shape reflects the patterning in the paradigm.
--And.