[YG Conlang Archives] > [jboske group] > messages [Date Index] [Thread Index] >
xod: > On Tue, 5 Aug 2003, And Rosta wrote: > > > 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. > > Well, if that's the case, then Mister = Typical, and CLL-lo'e = Jorge > lo'e. I don't think "xod" = "typical xod". If I see a dreadlockless xod, I still see xod, even though I don't see typical xod. (My concept of xod here; I'm not presuming expertise in xodology.) Ergo, Mister != Typical. As xorxes (&, less cogently, me too) has been saying, context determines how felicitous it is to describe as individual X a bit of X. The more typical of X the bit of X is, the less dependent on context is the felicity. --And.