[YG Conlang Archives] > [jboske group] > messages [Date Index] [Thread Index] >
xorxes:
> 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
That's right.
> >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
I see no problem with Instance, since being an Instance of
Mr Broda is equivalent to having the property ka ce'u broda.
As for Kind being a predicate, it is rather weird, but to me
no weirder than -- & indeed exactly as weird as -- du'u being
a predicate.
But maybe I'm still not perceiving the problem. Mixing conflicting
ontologies in the same proposition (as in "Mr Dog is a dog") is
always going to give rise to weirdnesses.
--And.