[YG Conlang Archives] > [jboske group] > messages [Date Index] [Thread Index] >
xorxes:
> la djan cusku di'e
>
> > Rather, CLL lo'e is about *characteristic* properties. It is
characteristic
> > of lions to live in Africa, to have short intestines, and to eat
antelope.
>
> But is it characteristic of short intestines to be had by lions?
No.
> Is it characteristic of antelope to be eaten by lions? If not, what
> do we relate {lo'e cinfo} with?
CLL-lo'e must involve some scope-sensitive typicality operator.
In that case, we would say "lo'e cinfo is intestinated by something short",
but not "something short intestinates lo'e cinfo".
> > > What if 50% of camels have two humps, and the rest have only one? Does
> > > lo'e camel have 1.5 humps?
> >
> > No. (After some research, I find it impossible to nail down the
relative
> > number of humps on camelids -- there seem to be no decent stats about
> > domesticated animals, which make up the great majority.) lo'e camel
> > simply wouldn't have a hump count, for the same reason that he/she
doesn't
> > have a gender.
>
> In my view, lo'e kumte is sometimes female and sometimes male, sometimes
> it has one hump and sometimes two (and other times none). In many context
> the question is irrelevant. It is like asking "what does John Cowan hold
> in his hand?". It varies with context, and in many contexts it is
> irrelevant.
OK, but this boils down to saying "In my view, {lo'e} = Kind". Which is
fair enough, but not really pertinent to interrogating the intent of
CLL-lo'e.
--And.