[YG Conlang Archives] > [jboske group] > messages [Date Index] [Thread Index] >
John:
> And Rosta scripsit:
>
> > For any property there is a Kind, that is all. In an ideal world, it
> > would be as easy to talk about the Kind that embodies that property
> > as about "da" that has the property and "it" that has the property.
>
> On this view, I think the Kind is simply the x1 of ka, so it is actually
> easier to talk about the Kind ("da poi ka broda") than to talk about
> something that has the property ("da ckaji de poi ka broda").
>
> Slogan version: Kinds are properties are reified predicates.
I second xorxes's & xod's responses to this.
That is, the answer is No. The x1 of ka is -- currently -- an incomplete
proposition (i.e. a proposition containing one unbound variable). If Kinds
are reified predicates, then they are reified as things that have the
property being reified.
Kinds and Properties are two ontologically incompatible ways of
conceptualizing the 'same' phenomenon. Past discussion has led us to
discover that we need both.
> > In my analysis, "This branch resembles two snakes" is "two subtypes of
> > Mr Snake", & my judgement is that this is a sufficiently ordinary thing
> > to want to say that it warrants having a shortcut to say it.
>
> What's wrong with "This branch resembles a snake type-of twosome?"
Nothing. But it is a tanru, so leaves the interpretation to glorking, and
hence is not really germane.
--And.