[YG Conlang Archives] > [jboske group] > messages [Date Index] [Thread Index] >
On Sun, 3 Aug 2003, Jorge Llambías wrote:
>
> la nitcion cusku di'e
>
> > CLL lo'e is not an intensional article, but a statement of typicality:
> > lo'e does generate an intension, but not the same intension as "Mr".
> > Our alternatives are to reassign "Mr" to lo'e, and dispense with CLL
> > lo'e --- which would leave the well-defined le'e orphaned
>
> {le'e} would still be well defined as the specific (and nonveridical)
> counterpart of {lo'e}. It would not be left orphaned.
>
> > --- or to leave CLL lo'e alone. Jorge has advocated the former, on the
> > grounds that CLL lo'e is nowhere near as useful as the use he would
> > put lo'e to.
>
> Correct. I showed in another post six or seven examples of the generic
> use of {lo'e} by people other than me. Perhaps someone could try to
> find any actual uses with the official meaning so we can compare.
Of course, there is another solution, which I've updated my page to
reflect.
But is there a divergence between Jorge's lo'e (which means kind, unique,
and Mister) and the CLL's lo'e (which means "typical", understood
precisely as the arithmetical mode: the most common type)?
What if 50% of camels have two humps, and the rest have only one? Does
lo'e camel have 1.5 humps?
-----
The Pentagon group believed it had a visionary strategy that would
transform Iraq into an ally of Israel, remove a potential threat to the
Persian Gulf oil trade and encircle Iran with U.S. friends and allies...