RE: [jboske] ***RO*** lo'e cinfo cu xabju le friko

[Nick Nicholas <opoudjis@optushome.com.au>]

cu'u la .and
> Jordan:
> > On Sun, Dec 22, 2002 at 12:33:32PM -0000, And Rosta wrote:
> > > The problem: to capture the difference between:
> > >
> > > 1. The lion lives in Africa. = A lion typically lives in Africa
> > > 2. I study the lion. != A lion typically is studied by me
> >
> > #2 is a si'o abstraction

> I meant not by 2 that I am a psychologist but that I am a
> zoologist. If #2 is a si'o abstraction then the example is
> irrelevant. If #2 means that I am a zoologist, then the example
> is not irrelevant. I intended the example in the relevant
> sense.

Still no dice. I understand your conundrum --- what to do with 
intrinsic and non-intrinsic claims of the prototype. But I think the 
solution --- which is certainly reflected in what others (John?) have 
said about the prototype --- is not to predicate anything of the 
prototype that isn't definitional to it. In the same way that you 
cannot say {mi kavbu lo'e cinfo}.

So #2 is not a fact about the prototype, unless lions are defined by 
the fact that you study them. Rather, #2 is a fact about the Kind 
(which I am going to start pushing for your Unique, because Kind is 
intelligible. And yes, your rendering is 'map Kind to Individual'; I 
say that should go in the small print, because Kinds are something we 
understand in English.)

--
**** **** **** **** **** **** **** **** **** **** **** **** **** **** ****
* Dr Nick Nicholas, French & Italian Studies nickn@unimelb.edu.au *
University of Melbourne, Australia http://www.opoudjis.net
* "Eschewing obfuscatory verbosity of locutional rendering, the *
circumscriptional appelations are excised." --- W. Mann & S. Thompson,
* _Rhetorical Structure Theory: A Theory of Text Organisation_, 1987. *
**** **** **** **** **** **** **** **** **** **** **** **** **** **** ****