[YG Conlang Archives] > [jboske group] > messages [Date Index] [Thread Index] >
xod: > > > (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. When I ask for xod & like xod, I am talking about xod, even though xod includes xod-on-the-one-day-per-decade-when-he-is-not-likable. In other words, we like the whole individual Mr Chocolate and the whole individual xod, even though each might have bits we don't like. > 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. I don't think we need these notions in order to be able to talk about wanting doctors and liking chocolate, but if you do want to express these notions, then perhaps Mr Typical Doctor and Mr Typical Chocolate would do the trick. > 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. Yes. This was a problem I noted wrt CLL-lo'e in the Great Debate. It's not relevant to Kinds per se, but it is relevant to claims about typical things. --And.