[YG Conlang Archives] > [jboske group] > messages [Date Index] [Thread Index] >
On 10/4/06, John E. Clifford <clifford-j@hidden.email> wrote:
There si probably an alternate way of doing this where all the ultimate nodes atrre the referent, but then the point of the nodes is somewhat lost. Of course, the nodes need have no reality other than as ways of speaking about the unltimate nodes, but we are not doing ontology here, just logical structure.
Wheras for me there are no ultimate nodes (i.e. nodes that don't subsume other nodes).
So far as I can tell, immediate descendent is always well defined -- each path is a well-ordering and so descrete -- neither dense nor continuous.
Consider a dog, x, and x minus one hair, y. Is y an immediate descendent of x? But then what about z, defined as x minus half that hair? Wouldn't z be a descendant of x and have y as a descendant?
I think the move from one node to some of its decendents atleast are quite common in object language talk: "I saw three dogs [level n]. One of them [level n-1, maybe n-2] ran to greet me. One of the others [level n-2 for the "one", n-1 for "the others"] ran away." and so on.
Whereas for me, all of those are at the same level. For me "x1 is/are among x2" is an object language relationship that holds between brodas of the same metalinguistic level, it is not the metalinguistic relationship between different level nodes, "x1 subsumes x2", which is the relationship that sets up the lattice. mu'o mi'e xorxes