* Wednesday, 2011-10-26 at 18:58 -0300 - Jorge Llambías <jjllambias@gmail.com>:
> On Wed, Oct 26, 2011 at 12:34 AM, Martin Bays <mbays@sdf.org> wrote:
> > * Tuesday, 2011-10-25 at 19:12 -0300 - Jorge Llambías <jjllambias@gmail.com>:
> >
> >> On Tue, Oct 25, 2011 at 1:42 AM, Martin Bays <mbays@sdf.org> wrote:
> >> >
> >> > OK, so I'm back to {lo ka vofli cipnrxalbatrosi cu xajmi}.
> >>
> >> What would you put in the x3 of xajmi?
> >
> > To be vague, {lo ka viska simlu ma kau} ("how it looks", also
> > translatable as "how they look").
>
> Do you still require that "lo xajmi cu ckaji lo te xajmi"?
It seems not, because
> If so, does that mean that a property can be seen? Can it have wings?
> Can it fly?
No; because we're going to want to be able to use {lo ka vofli} for the
analogue of the kind 'flying things', and not to have this confused with
flying things. So only certain places of certain predicates would accept
properties in this way - probably precisely the same ones for which you
have pure-kind predication blocking other types when they're given
a kind. Precisely which these should be, or even whether {xajmi} should
actually be among them, I'm not sure of. But that's how I'm seeing it
working in general.
> If a property can do all those things, then your "lo ka vofli
> cipnrxalbatrosi" starts to look a lot like my "lo vofli
> cipnrxalbatrosi".
Yes, it still is quite like it - the idea is to separate out kinds from
mundanes, replacing kind predication which resolves to mundane
predication with direct mundane predication, and using {lo ka} when we
want pure-kind predication.
I know it looks a bit like an abuse of {ka}, but I think (ju'o cu'i) it
could be done in a coherent way.
JCs kind-as-bunches idea is still neater where it works, though. I'm not
sure whether it's sufficient on its own.
Martin
Attachment:
pgp3mwrg9vRb0.pgp
Description: PGP signature