[YG Conlang Archives] > [jboske group] > messages [Date Index] [Thread Index] >
On Tue, 5 Aug 2003, And Rosta wrote:
> xod:
> > On Tue, 5 Aug 2003, And Rosta wrote:
> >
> > > xod:
> > > > On the subway, reading Nick's article, I realized another place where
> he
> > > > had already answered a question that we were chewing today. He says
> > > > 'Likewise, the generic statement "Dogs make good pets" ignores the
> > > > distinction between Fido, Rover, and Azor; it even ignores the
> exceptions
> > > > like Fifi...'
> > > >
> > > > 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.
> > > >
> > > > Therefore, I no longer think that Mr. Bird is sometimes a carnivore
> and
> > > > sometimes an herbivore. Such a question should be answered na'i.
> > >
> > > Whatever the answer is, it should be the same answer as we give for
> "xod".
> > >
> > > > Mr. Bird
> > > > has 2 wings, feathers, and a beak, and flies. The cases of
> single-winged
> > > > or flightless birds are ignored like Fifi.
> > >
> > > You can encounter Mr Bird when he is flightless, just as you can
> encounter
> > > xod when he is dreadlockless. But out of context, I would not describe
> > > Mr Bird as flightless or xod as dreadlockless.
> >
> > 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.
>
> I understand, & I meant what I said. When you take a particular
> spatiotemporal
> section of Mr Bird, such as a penguin-shaped section, and consider no other
> sections, then Mr Bird cannot fly. Wholly analogously, when you take a
> particular spationtemporal section of AndR, such as an AndR-in-2003-shaped
> one, then "AndR never drinks alcohol" is true, even though it is false for,
> say, an AndR-in-1983-shaped section.
>
> The generalization: we attribute to the whole individual properties that
> hold of some but not necessarily all sections of the individual. This
> attribution is contextually constrained: absent any other context, we
> attribute to the whole individual properties that hold of most sections
> of the individual, or hold of a contemporaneous section of the individual.
> But context can override these default tendencies.
>
> > > > I now see 3 concepts.
> > > >
> > > > a) The quality of birdness; kamcipni. Abstract.
> > > >
> > > > b) The Prototype Bird. Claims about b are claims about the definition
> of
> > > > "cipni". Intensional? Uncountable, or countably one.
> > > >
> > > > c) A Prototype-Instance of Bird. Claims about an instance do not
> reflect
> > > > upon the definition or any other instances. Extensional? Countable.
> > >
> > > OK. But none of these are Mr Bird.
> >
> > If not, then my above criticism of Mr. Bird applies. It's the 2nd
> > paragraph of this email.
>
> A difference is that talking about separate individual birds and separate
> individual spatiotemporal sections of xod requires quantification. Talking
> about Mr Bird and xod doesn't.
>
> > > > Now for some bold, unfounded claims.
> > > >
> > > > 1) b = CLL-lo'e = lo'e'e.
> > >
> > > 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.
> >
> > I can accept that Prototypes (definitions, in general) are constant across
> > contexts but differ between them.
> >
> >
> > > > And that c = Jorge-lo'e = lo'e'a = Mister = lo
> > > > jai ka broda.
> > >
> > > 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.
>
> They vary as wildly as any individual's properties. If your intuitions
> about Mr Bird fail you, then try your intuitions about Bill Clinton, say.
>
> > > As for
> > > {lo jai ka broda}, it is hard to see what that would mean, apart from
> > > something unfathomably vague.
> > >
> > > > 2) b is almost useless, and can indeed be better expressed by ka'u
> lo'e'a
> > > > na'o broda cipni.
> > >
> > > 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.
> >
> > Perhaps you're taking a more specialized interpretation of Prototype than
> > I am.
>
> Maybe I was, unwarrantedly. I can see now that you might have meant an
> "exceptionful default definition" (which I would see as a variety of ka,
> probably).
>
> > > > 3) The intensional/extensional relationship between these 2 should
> > > > be explored and exploited, unless I'm mistaken and it doesn't really
> > > > exist. But it seems to me that b is some sort of a symbol for the
> members
> > > > of c, such that some LAhE applied to b should give us an instance of b
> > > > which is a c.
> > >
> > > b is a variety of a.
> >
> > Not really. a is abstract, b is not. a doesn't have wings, b has 2.
>
> Ah. OK. Something like a platonic form. Yes -- okay, that's legit. But
> you can't see platonic forms or eat them or their eggs, mind.
>
> > > Do we mentally represent birdiness as a list of
> > > properties, or do we represent it as something that is itself birdlike?
> > > When deciding whether something is a bird, do we run through the
> checklist
> > > of properties seeing whether the thing satisfies each property, or do we
> > > compare the thing against the birdlike image? That's a question that
> > > matters psychologically, but not so much linguistically.
> >
> > It's true that there may be some redundancy between a and b. I wasn't
> > proposing them as candidate gadri, but rather simply trying to organize
> > the mess.
>
> OK. I think I get the idea of (b), then. But none of your (a-c) are Mr Bird.
> Mr Bird collapses all separate birds into a single individual. That is the
> key to understanding it.
I will mediate on the question of whether or not this is any different
from discussing individuals, and respond on this later.
>
> > > Kind/Mr is not equivalent to {su'o lo}, because Kind?Mr
> > > involves no quantification. I can't say whether Kind/Mr is equivalent to
> > > {tu'o lo}, because as yet we have no idea of what, if anything, {tu'o
> lo}
> > > should mean. (The outer quantifier of Kind/Mr must be {tu'o}, though --
> > > that is beyond question.)
> >
> > I am impatiently waiting for someone to resolve the initial contradiction
> > that I discovered in Nick's piece and mentioned in the first note with
> > this sujbect header.
> >
> > It seems there are 2 directions to operate in.
> >
> > (lu'e-like) I can have a certain item in mind, and try to describe it to
> > you as a this or that. Specific, and countable.
> >
> > (la'e-like) I can have a certain set of characteristics in mind -- a
> > prototype! -- and discuss interchangables that fit the profile. The
> > latter is "I need a doctor", "I like chocolate". Nonspecific, and
> > countable.
> >
> > Is the latter lo? Some sort of lo'e? Mister?
>
> Mister isn't the set of characteristics or the interchangeables that fit
> it, but on the whole we felt that Mister is the best way to talk about
> needing doctors and liking chocolate.
When I ask for a Doctor and like Chocolate, I am not talking about Mister,
because Mister includes Doctor Frankenstein and very poor quality
chocolate. I'm talking about a Prototype Instance: it has the qualities of
the Prototype (without the specific qualities of the outliers) but yet IS
not the Prototype, because I can make specific claims about the instance
that cannot be interpreted as definitional assertions.
On the other hand, perhaps when I do make such claims, I convert the sumti
from being a prototype instance into a specific. When you spill coffee on
your copy of the New York Times (a prototype instance), you have a choice
to make. Either you pay attention to the spill, and it ceases to be a
prototype instance since the prototype doesn't include coffee, or you can
ignore the spill as irrelevant, and cointinue referring to it as prototype
instance.
If that's the case, then the Prototype and its Instances are redundant...
--
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...