[YG Conlang Archives] > [jboske group] > messages [Date Index] [Thread Index] >
la xod cusku di'e
> > > And there is also my previous argument: that a Mr. Bird who satisfies the
> > > exact characteristics of every real bird in turn is a trippy idea but no
> > > different from discussing the actual birds taken as individuals.
But it is different.
Suppose we had no way of discussing a Xod that satisfies the exact
characteristics of every real Xod-instance in turn, but we had to
discuss only the actual instances taken as individuals. "Do you know
Xod-20030805? No, I met Xod-20030803 and Xod-20030623, but I never
had the pleasure of meeting Xod-20030805". It is very useful to
be able to talk about a Xod that covers all instances. Some
instances are not very characteristic of Xod, so it would be
silly to claim properties of those instances out of context as
if they were characteristic, only characteristic properties can
be safely claimed out of context. But with proper context, all
properties can be truthfully claimed.
> By flightless I don't mean {no flying but walking at the moment}. I mean
> {cannot fly, like a Penguin}.
>
> Flightlessness is not true of the Kind. It is not true of the Prototype,
> nor of the Prototype Instances.
Mr Bird is flightless when he is being a penguin, he cannot fly in
that instance. That's not something typical of Mr Bird though, he is
not typically being a pinguin. Typically, Mr Bird can fly.
> > 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.
>
> I'm not disputing the unity of Mr. Bird, but his attributes, and how
> wildly they are permitted to vary.
As wildly as the attributes of instances. But claiming atypical
attributes out of context can be misleading.
mu'o mi'e xorxes
__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
The New Yahoo! Search - Faster. Easier. Bingo.
http://search.yahoo.com