[YG Conlang Archives] > [jboske group] > messages [Date Index] [Thread Index] >
And Rosta scripsit:
> CLL-lo'e is not as specifically psychologized as (b). A zoologist can make
> empirical statements about lo'e cinfo which are zoological rather than
> psychological, i.e. about lions in general rather than about the
> psychological lion prototype.
Correct. And le'e can be seen as the *objective* view of an *in-mind* set,
hence its relationship to lo'e and le'i. We get lo'e by generalizing
appropriately over the members of (the unique) lo'i, whereas we get le'e
by generalizing appropriately over the members of (some) le'i. By choosing
the le'i properly, we can manipulate just which le'e we get.
For example, I can say that le'e xelso prenu has a beard by choosing
le'i xelso prenu to be the set {Nick Nicholas, Dimitrios Karadimos}, viz.
the only Greeks I know personally. But anybody can tell you that
CLL-lo'e xelso prenu doesn't have a beard. (<theKind> xelso prenu of course
does have a beard, and is also beardless, depending on which avatar we
are looking at today.)
I hope this explicates why CLL's account of le'e (allowing for the fact,
openly stated in CLL, that the word "stereotype" is used in a slightly
nonstandard way) is plausible.
> Jorge-lo'e = Mister != c. Mr Bird treats birdkind as a single individual
> bird, just as we generally treat xodkind as a single individual xod.
+1
> Prototype-theorists, i.e. some cognitive psychologists, would want to talk
> about (b), but it needn't be built into the fabric of the language.
Need not be but is.
> I don't understand. I think we all take the nonspecificity of lo seriously.
I think this was based on a misreading of what "nonspecific" means.
--
John Cowan jcowan@hidden.email www.ccil.org/~cowan www.reutershealth.com
"If I have seen farther than others, it is because I was standing on
the shoulders of giants."
--Isaac Newton