Re: ago24 & replies

[jorge@PHYAST.PITT.EDU]

And:
{lo bridi}
> My gihuste says "x1 (du'u) is a predicate". Is this out of date?

Mine says:

bridi     bri      predicate
x1 (text) is a predicate relationship with relation x2 among arguments
(sequence/set) x3
[also: x3 are related by relation x2 (= terbri for reordered places)];
(x3 is a set completely specified); (cf. sumti, fancu)

I think I prefer your version, though.

> I don't agree that the properties of the archetype have to do with
> the properties of the instances. To me, {lohe mlatu cu xekri} means
> "typical instances of the cat archetype are black", but not "the
> cat archetype is black". I don't know of any way to attribute properties
> to the cat archetype rather than its instances.

So according to you {lo'e mlatu} refers to the instances of the archetype?
To extramental objects? Or are the instances mental objects?

> > I suppose you couldn't say {mi pensi lo'e mlatu} with your definition.
>
> It would mean "the typical instance of the cat archetype is thought
> about by me". Indeed not the meaning you wished to express.

"The" typical instance? Is there only one? Why were they many when they
were black? And I wasn't thinking of many cats.

> > > What sort of properties does an archetype
> > > (as opposed to its instances) have?
> > I can think about {lo'e mlatu}, I can need {lo'e mlatu}, I can want
> > {lo'e mlatu}, I can look for {lo'e mlatu}, all without there being
> > a single {lo mlatu} with those properties.
>
> You don't look for or need the archetype. You look for a typical
> instance of the archetype, which, as you say, needn't exist.

But is a typical instance being looked for by me? Are more than one
typical instances being looked for by me? I think that the relationship
is with a single thing, not with a multitude of instances. When you
say "you look for a typical instance of the archetype" you are falling
back on English opaque usage. Whether you call it "the archetype" or
"the typical instance of the archetype", what I'm looking for is one
thing (or I would happily add a {re} in front if I was looking for two
cats, but I know you don't like that).

> I suspect we agree after all, so long as you agree that we are
> not now discussing lahe lu lohe mlatu lihu, but rather
> le duhu kau du lihu lu lohe mlatu lihu. [NB placatory {kau}.]
         ^ma

Did you mean {le du'u makau du _la'e_ lu lo'e mlatu li'u}?

That's equivalent, I think, to {le du'u makau du lo'e mlatu}?

But I don't see what distinction you are making.

> I would still hold that {lohe} implies universal quantification:
>  mi nitcu lohe mlatu
>  Ax x is a typical instance of the cat archetype -> I need x

How can you tell whether x is a typical instance? Suppose I need a box,
and there's one fairly ordinary (even typical, one might say) box right
beside me. Is it true that {mi nitcu le vi tanxe}? I say no, not
necessarily this one, I need any box. But this one will do fine, even
though I can't claim that it is needed by me.

> > In any case, even if the tense is given, that doesn't
> > fix the exact time, so I don't see much difference. If I say
> > {ko'a cusku le sedu'u ko'a ba klama} = "she said she will come",
> > I am talking about a particular time in the future, not about any
> > time in the future, so saying the {ba} explicitly or not doesn't
> > really change much.
> Good point. This would be fixed if all or most gismu automatically
> came with an event place fillable by zohe.
> > > This would not be so if, as I would advocate, every or
> > > at least most selbri had event sumti.
> > I really don't see the relationship of this with the tenses.
>
> The tense of broda is the time at which le nu broda occurs.
> If there were a sumti place (tersumti) for the event, then it
> could be filled by a specific or non-specific (implicit) sumti.

I must be missing something because I still have no idea what you are
talking about. {klama} has no place for an event, while {zvati} does.
How does that help, or otherwise, in determining the tense in
{ko'a cusku le se du'u klama} or {ko'a cusku le se du'u zvati}.
They seem totally analogous cases. And there are many (probably most)
selbri without event places, I don't see why you would want most
of them to have one.

Jorge