[YG Conlang Archives] > [jboske group] > messages [Date Index] [Thread Index] >
cu'u la .and
Jordan:On Sun, Dec 22, 2002 at 12:33:32PM -0000, And Rosta wrote: > The problem: to capture the difference between: > > 1. The lion lives in Africa. = A lion typically lives in Africa > 2. I study the lion. != A lion typically is studied by me #2 is a si'o abstraction
I meant not by 2 that I am a psychologist but that I am a zoologist. If #2 is a si'o abstraction then the example is irrelevant. If #2 means that I am a zoologist, then the example is not irrelevant. I intended the example in the relevant sense.
Still no dice. I understand your conundrum --- what to do with intrinsic and non-intrinsic claims of the prototype. But I think the solution --- which is certainly reflected in what others (John?) have said about the prototype --- is not to predicate anything of the prototype that isn't definitional to it. In the same way that you cannot say {mi kavbu lo'e cinfo}.
So #2 is not a fact about the prototype, unless lions are defined by the fact that you study them. Rather, #2 is a fact about the Kind (which I am going to start pushing for your Unique, because Kind is intelligible. And yes, your rendering is 'map Kind to Individual'; I say that should go in the small print, because Kinds are something we understand in English.)
-- **** **** **** **** **** **** **** **** **** **** **** **** **** **** **** * Dr Nick Nicholas, French & Italian Studies nickn@hidden.email * University of Melbourne, Australia http://www.opoudjis.net * "Eschewing obfuscatory verbosity of locutional rendering, the * circumscriptional appelations are excised." --- W. Mann & S. Thompson, * _Rhetorical Structure Theory: A Theory of Text Organisation_, 1987. * **** **** **** **** **** **** **** **** **** **** **** **** **** **** ****