Re: replies mainly re "ka"

[Goran Topic <topic@math.hr>]

> Jorge:
> > And:
> > > We must distinguish "features" from "feature values":
> > >       feature      feature value
> > > (I)   colour       red, blue, green
> > Is "redness" a feature or a feature value? I suppose it's a feature,
> > and that is what I understand "le ka [ke'a] xunre" to mean.
>
> A feature is a selbri, a function from the possessor to the value.
> I don't think redness is a feature: "what is the redness of this
> book? Answer: crimson" does not exemplify the normal meaning of
> redness. "Redness" is the defining properties of the x1 tersumti
> of xunre. This is roughly what "ka keha xunre" yields: a tersumti.

Parallel to the mentioned.
feature     feature value
redness     yes, no, mostly, crimson

Redness is also a feature, although much more restricted in values
than colour.

> > > Do you see how a set can come into being in stages? If so, you can see
> > > how a set can be a process.
> > No, I can see how its coming into being can be a process, but the set
> > itself is not the process, that would be sumti raising.
>
> Does a set have temporal dimensions? I think it does. Maybe it's a
> personal quirk of mine to be able to think of most things as events.

As far as I understand system theory (which may not be perfect):
Set is an abstract structure, and has no dimensions at all. Nothing can be
added into a set - you can only think of a new one, as an union of an
existing one and new elements. For example, can you tell me how long
does the set of all natural numbers between 0 and 17 exist? When it
came to be? Or does it have sort of on-and-off existence, when nobody
thinks about such a set it doesn't exist? pe'i the set as an event can
be seen to exist from the moment all of its elements are defined until
the moment any its elements are forgotten. For example, set of
{jet plane (object, not word), slave, 2} did not exist 200 years ago
when the concept of jet plane did not exist, although its subset
{apple, 2} was already in existence. As long as people remember there
were once people who used to be other people's property, and can count,
and there is knowledge that once there were airborne transportation
devices that worked by air propulsion, this set would exist. So, again,
if you *must* interpret this set as a process, then it coincides with
process of invention of jet-plane, its last defined object. AIMHO.

> > > I'm still not convinced that naho doesn't mean what I thought it did.
> > Let mi change to a simpler example. Say we want to say "in general,
> > elephants are grey".
> > You want to say:
> >        na'oku ro xanto cu grusi
> > To me, this says that if you look at the unspecified interval (let's
> > say it's ze'e, all time) then for a significant portion of the interval
> > you will find that every elephant is grey. In parts of the interval
> > this may not be true, but typically it will.
> > That is not what the English expression says.
>
> You have persuaded me.
>
> > Probably the best translation is {lo'e xanto cu grusi}.
>
> Maybe, but it's not a general solution. It won't do for "In general,
> I am grey". And it was that - the inadequacy of lohe in some
> circumstances - that set me off on this subthread.

What does that mean, anyway? For "In an interval, I am grey most
of the time" {na'o} works OK, as far as I can see. If you want
"Most of me is grey", {piso'e mi grusi}?

> > Similarly, you can't say {na'oku ro skoto ...} if you don't mean each
> > and every Scotsman, at least in the parts of the interval where the
> > relationship holds.
>
> True enough. But in "an englishman's taste for whisky is acquired" we
> don't mean the generic Englishman either (though maybe we do mean
> the generic englishman-with-a-taste-for-whisky, or the generic
> englishman's-taste-for-whisky).
>
> So, how to say "in general it is the case that..."?

I haven't been following the thread real closely, but what's wrong with

lo ka lo glipre cu vusnei la uiskis. cu toljinzi
Property of (an Englishman having taste for whiskey) is non-inherent.

Although, that does have one quirk - I assume that jinzi is defined
as "exhibiting x1 is innate to x2". Category of non-blueness is not
inherent to rose - but exhibiting non-blueness (which is a value:
true, yes, 1, whatever) is. Otherwise I agree that {ka} has two
meanings. But I think that people can see that in words like {jinzi}
category is not applicable and can adjust the meaning of such words
in their internal (mental) dictionaries without much trouble.

One more try (providing di'e gendra)

ro glipre noroi ja pu'o vusnei la .uiskis.
Each Englishman ((never liked nor will like) or
(was/is/will be before liking)) whiskey.

You can, if I understand correctly, say {lo'e glipre} in both sentences,
if you want to generalize instead of making the claim of *every* glipre
that likes whiskey.

co'o mi'e. goran.

--
Learn languages! The more langs you know, the more incomprehensible you can get
e'udoCILreleiBANgu.izo'ozo'onairoBANguteDJUnobedocubanRI'a.ailekadonaka'eSELjmi