Re: Re: RE: [jboske] loi'e & truthconditions (was: RE: carving the lo'e debateintoshape

[Adam Raizen <araizen@cs.huji.ac.il>]

de'i li 2002-10-26 ti'u li 22:52:00 la'o zoi. Jorge Llambias .zoi cusku di'e

>la adam cusku di'e
>
>> >We are examining a particular situation usually, not the
>> >world in general. Of course, in the absence of context,
>> >we turn our attention to the world in general, and then
>> >start thinking in terms of typicality and habituality.
>> >But {lo'e} is for particular situations too and mainly.
>>
>>Are you saying that given a clear context, 'lo'i cinfo'
>>could mean the set of all iranian lions? I think that this
>>is wrong. When you use an o-gadri, you are explicitly
>>referencing the entire set, with no context or otherwise
>>limiting the set.
>
>I'm not saying {lo'i cinfo} will be reduced to that, but in
>a given situation, the _relevant_ lions will be the lions
>relevant to that situation. The weight of the others would
>be reduced if you were doing some kind of average over the
>extension. If you find yourself about to be eaten by a lion,
>for example, then Mr Lion will be preponderantly if not
>exclusively that one lion. Mr Lion is there with you in that
>instance.

I think you are conflating 'lo'i' and 'le'i'; the lions relevant
to the situation as defined by the speaker is 'le'i cinfo'. 'lo'i'
at least attempts to make some kind of a quasi-objective 
consideration of all lions.

mu'o mi'e .adam.