Re: TECH: Transparence / Opaqueness

[Jorge Llambias <jorge@PHYAST.PITT.EDU>]

la veion cusku di'e

> Something still bothers me. If we accept that a structure like
>
>       re lo'e remna
>       two of all the typical human beings

No, this is confusing. There is no such thing as "all the typical
human beings" as a group from which to select. {lo'e remna} doesn't
have a proper referent. You can't point to someone and say that
they are a {lo'e remna}. (You can say that they are a typical
human, but that is {lo fadni remna}, which should not be confused
with {lo'e remna}). If you are making a claim about {re lo'e remna},
you are NOT claiming that there are two humans for which the claim
is true.

> means 'any two [typical] human beings' then
>
>       re lo remna
>       two of all the really are human beings
>
> ought to mean 'any two human beings' as {lo'e} is more restrictive
> than {lo}.

{lo'e} is not more restrictive than {lo}. {lo remna} has actual humans
as referents, {lo'e remna} has a platonic ideal as a referent.

> {lo} requires that the described entity exhibits a
> minimal set of characteristics to be considered {the really is},

Agreed.

> {lo'e} on the other hand requires that the described entity
> exhibits enough of the common characteristics to be considered
> {the typical}.

But the described entity doesn't exist in the same realm as the
entities described by {lo}. The {lo'e broda} exhibits the minimal
set of characteristics, and no others. Because it doesn't exist
in reality, it is not forced to have individual characteristics
like any everyday {lo broda}, which might make it in some way
"atypical".

> I think we need to be able to express {the typical},
> so either we accept the above or we have to assign a new cmavo
> for {the arbitrary}. Even then this type of structure may be
> somewhat dubious.

I'm not sure I see what is the problem you are describing. Perhaps
some examples would be useful. I don't think {lo'e broda} should
be used in the sense of {so'e broda}.

Jorge