[YG Conlang Archives] > [jboske group] > messages [Date Index] [Thread Index] >
John: > And Rosta scripsit: > > But I think Mr US President is not a subkind of Mr White Male, even > > though there is no US President who is not a white male. > > You are going to say that it is a mere contingency that all presidents > hitherto have been white males, but it seems to me that when dealing > with Mr., what is actually the case rules. Mr. Goat is a subkind of Mr. > Quadruped, notwithstanding that we may be able to engineer six-legged > goats some day. It was only after the discovery of Australia that > we (i.e. non-Aboriginals) learned that Mr. Swan was not a subkind > of Mr. White: before that date it would have been perverse to claim > otherwise. Our disagreement is more philosophical than linguistic. If we engineer a six-legged goat is it a true goat? Or would it be almost but not quite a goat? I think the answer to that question determines whether or not Mr Goat is a subkind of Mr Quadruped. Similarly, the answer to whether a nonmale or nonwhite *could* be a US President determines whether Mr US P is a subkind of Mr White Male. And compare with whether someone not born in the US could be president: I'd say that if the answer to that were Yes, then the nature of US P would be altered, and we'd be dealing with a different Kind. And the answer to whether a black swan would be a true swan would determine whether Mr Swan is a subkind of Mr White. And I would not accept that Mr Lojbanist is a subkind of Mr Anglophone, even if the entirety of Mr Lojbanist's presence in our universe overlaps with that of Mr Anglophone. --And.