[YG Conlang Archives] > [jboske group] > messages [Date Index] [Thread Index] >
la and cusku di'e
> >SCHEME C sumti selbri
> >Instance LE [x]e ka broda xe ka broda
> >Full Manifestation ma'u ve ka broda ve ka broda
> >Subkind LE te ka broda te ka broda
> >Kind ma'u [s]e ka broda se ka broda
NB corrigenda
> Very interesting, but I don't think it can work
>
> {LE-Kind broda} should be a possible term to use in
> any slot that will take {LE-Instance broda}. If something
> means "... is an instance of", then I want to be able to
> talk of Mr Instance, and say "Mr Instance is an instance
> of ...". So I think distinguishing intensional from
> extensional reference cannot be a job for a selbri
Can you explain a bit more?
If I claim: su'o xe ka gerku cu broda At least some dog is broda then I want to also be able to claim that the kind does: ma'u se ka gerku cu broda Mr Dog is broda for any possible broda. So what happens when "broda" is "xe ka gerku", "is an instance of dog". su'o xe ka gerku cu xe ka gerku At least one dog is (an instance of) a dog. ma'u se ka gerku cu xe ka gerku Mr Dog is (an instance of) a dog. Is that correect? "Mr Dog" should satisfy the same predicates that "some dog" satisfies.
The idea is that {LE broda} can be seen as an abbreviation
of {LE xe ka broda}, where the syntax allows it:
{LE xe ka mi djuno ma'u du'u ke'a brodu}
and {LE xe ka ro pendo be ke'a cu brodu}
and {LE xe ka ke'a e mi klama}
cannot be abbreviated thus.
The scheme does not offer abbreviations for se/te/ve ka,
though Nick may eventually magic one up.
I understand, but I'm not convinced that Kind and Instance are things we can predicate of something. They are names for types of reference, I think, not descriptions of referents. mu'o mi'e xorxes _________________________________________________________________Add photos to your e-mail with MSN 8. Get 2 months FREE*. http://join.msn.com/?page=features/featuredemail