Re: [jboske] Re: Unique == Misterhood? (was: lo'e gadri: can we

[John Cowan <cowan@ccil.org>]

Invent Yourself scripsit:
> 
> On Thu, 19 Dec 2002, Jordan DeLong wrote:
> 
> > On Wed, Dec 18, 2002 at 10:08:20PM -0500, John Cowan wrote:
> > > And Rosta scripsit:
> > > > 1. substance
> > > > 2. prototype.
> > > > 3. unique.
> >
> > Unique still makes no sense to me.
> >
> > > I think this is exactly the Right Thing in every respect, and
> > > with the addition of 4. individual(s), should form our new gadri
> > > system. I do think however that the term "unique" is bad, because
> > > it suggests that there is literally, rather than notionally, only
> > > one of the thing. Whereas in fact what I take to be going on is
> > > a sort of superposition of the actual things (birds, Superbowl games, etc.)
> >
> > Wait a minute. What's the "new gadri system". I don't think we
> > can or should abandon the current system.
> 
> 
> But you've been here as we've discovered just how broken it is.
> 
> 
> > Any clarifcations which are made should be just that---we can't and
> > shouldn't change things so that "loi djacu" is meaningless and no longer
> > means bare "water" or whatever crap xod was pushing.
> 
> 
> What a difference a few hours makes. Before, you were insisting that le
> djacu can refer to any amount of water...what then do you want lei djacu
> Other than reflecting the peculiarities of English, what are the
> qualities exhibited by an individual glass of water which are not enjoyed
> by "some" water? Or vice versa?

The quality of countability. You can count the glassfuls of water on
a table, but you can't count the water in the fishtank.

-- 
John Cowan http://www.ccil.org/~cowan <jcowan@reutershealth.com>
You tollerday donsk? N. You tolkatiff scowegian? Nn.
You spigotty anglease? Nnn. You phonio saxo? Nnnn.
Clear all so! `Tis a Jute.... (Finnegans Wake 16.5)