[YG Conlang Archives] > [jboske group] > messages [Date Index] [Thread Index] >
On 10/6/06, John E. Clifford <clifford-j@hidden.email> wrote:
Well, unless it is a lingusitic item (and even then I have some doubts) a broda type doesn't count as a broda at all -- because it isn't one.
My understanding was that the broda lattice consists of all things and only those things that at least in some context count as a broda. The "subsume" relationship that defines the lattice holds only between brodas, one broda subsumes another broda. Something that is not a broda cannot subsume a broda.
I should have thought that it was exxential when talking about breeds and of the dogs in them that they be in the same lattice, else in what sense is an individual dog in a particular breed?
When we relate breeds with specimens in the same context, we take the breeds from the breed lattice (which does not contain specimens, because a breed can only subsume a breed) and the specimen from the specimen lattice (which does not contain breeds, as a specimen only subsumes a specimen). The object language relationship "x1 is a specimen of breed x2" holds between two things in the domain of discourse. In that discourse, those two things will not be related by "subsume", which is a metalinguistic relationship. (These two things will happen to both be in the metalinguistic dog lattice because each could count as a dog in some discourse, but in most normal discourses, in a discourse that is not about language, only one of them could count as a dog.) mu'o mi'e xorxes