[YG Conlang Archives] > [jboske group] > messages [Date Index] [Thread Index] >
On Mon, 4 Aug 2003, Jorge Llambías wrote: > > la djan cusku di'e > > > I am using the word "carnivore" in the sense not of an animal that eats > > animal flesh, but in the sense of an animal that (with trivial exceptions) > > eats nothing else. > > Mr Bird is carnivore only in some instances. If we say that a > person is "vegetarian" if they will not eat meat, then someone can > be vegetarian at a given time time, even though they have eaten meat > before they became vegetarian. Similarly, Mr Bird can be carnivore > in a given instance. If we allow Mr. Bird to assume all the properties of every bird, one at a time, what is the use of such a concept? I think that at one time, when lo'e was understood to mean "typical", mi viska lo'e cipni meant I saw something that had 2 wings. Mr. Bird sometimes has one wing; if I allow the lo'e cipni which I saw to be interpreted by others as possibly having one wing, it seems rather a useless concept. ni'ocu'i We think of the typical lion as having a mane, but really, that only reflects the males, which might be only half the lion population. -- 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...