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

["And Rosta" <a.rosta@lycos.co.uk>]

Nick:
> 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.)

Okay: I accept this as a solution. Prototype is not the only generic,
and sometimes Unique is the appropriate generic.

I don't have a problem with Unique being construed as Kind, so long
as that doesn't lead to extrapolations inconsistent with the 
definition of Unique.

--And.