[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: quick comment on {loi}
- Subject: Re: quick comment on {loi}
- From: bob@GNU.AI.MIT.EDU
- In-Reply-To: <199411190403.XAA04478@albert.gnu.ai.mit.edu> (message from Jorge Llambias on Fri, 18 Nov 1994 20:19:19 EST)
jorge@phyast.pitt.edu said:
For a single cat, it makes little difference to use {lo mlatu} or
{loi mlatu}.
Depends on what you want to say. When I distinguish between the
cat that can be squeezed very hard by a three year old and the cat
that must be treated gently, I use {le} and {lo}, the first for the
stuffed toy, the second for the `for real' cat.
When I am talking about a part of the web of life, and using
categories that young children learn first, then I use {loi}.
(Lakoff quotes Brown as saying that children learn genus level
categories first; i.e., entities at the middle of hierarchies, the
level at which things are distingished by distinctive actions: a cat
is for petting, a flower is for looking and sniffing; what can be
pointed to or pantamimed. {loi} fits this categorization level like a
{gluta} (mitten/glove); put another way, the first places of many
gismu could have been written with Lakoff and Brown in mind.)
Couldn't the programmer use {lo} for [an instance of a class.] too?
Yes. In some circumstances that would be more appropriate. (For
example, some of the entities on my screen right now may not be
`really' windows in the context of someone programming my display...)
> (I have
> three instances of class Window on my screen right now.)
And that would be {ci lo me la'o gy Window gy}. No {loi} there.
As I say, depends on what you are trying to convey.
Robert J. Chassell bob@gnu.ai.mit.edu
25 Rattlesnake Mountain Road bob@grackle.stockbridge.ma.us
Stockbridge, MA 01262-0693 USA (413) 298-4725