RE: [jboske] RE: Llamban

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

pc:
> xod@thestonecutters.net writes:
> <<
> 
> > I certainly won't claim that my {lo'e nanmu} is "the average man".
> > It is "men in general".
> 
> What's the difference? Aren't their properties identical?
> 
> >>
> Well, no. The average man is 5'9" tall, say; man in general is not 
> any particular height. And so on through a mass of statistical 
> information. Man in general seems to have only generic properties -- 
> being a mammal, bipedal, and the like. Xorxes {lo'e nanmu} does not 
> actually work too well for "man in general" even -- and is more 
> likely to be something acted upon than something acting -- or having 
> properties. 

How do we talk about:

1. A shark that is man-eating (even if it hasn't eaten a man)
2. A shark that isn't man-eating but maybe could be in exceptional
circumstances (e.g. facing starvation).

1 = ca'a citka lo'ei remna
2 = ka'e citka lo'ei remna

But we still want to understand the underlying logical representation 
of these.

--And.