* Tuesday, 2011-10-18 at 20:33 -0300 - Jorge Llambías <jjllambias@gmail.com>:
> On Tue, Oct 18, 2011 at 7:57 PM, Martin Bays <mbays@sdf.org> wrote:
> > I agree that it isn't perfect terminology, because what's on the kind
> > end in one situation might in other situations be on the mundane end,
> > and vice-versa. Whether or not there are 'absolute mundanes' isn't
> > really important - it's the mixing of the levels in a single {lo}-phrase
> > that causes the problems.
>
> That almost sounds like something I would say!
I know!
> I agree you shouldn't mix levels in the same lo-phrase.
But whether or not the meaning you intend does, the range of possible
meanings does cross levels. That's the issue.
> Any resolution into lower levels you may want to do has to come from
> something outside of the lo-phrase, the lo-phrase will only provide
> the uppermost level for any given situation.
That would help only if it could be made into a disambiguating rule,
such that the listener knows that {lo cinfo} refers to a kind of lions
rather than to any lions. That's what I was (hopfefully!) interpreting
and as saying.
Martin
Attachment:
pgpjI2d1X2h7k.pgp
Description: PGP signature