WikiDiscuss

WikiDiscuss


Revised species (eliminating species)

posts: 2388

So, we're back to {lo} is general — or just more vague --than {su'o}. Not it is strictly not possible to be more vague than {su'o} unless you allow that the number might be zero. On the other hand, I present you with a notion for {lo} that is as vague as {su'o} but neither implies {su'o} nor is implied by it. Whereas, your {lo} is both, if it is to do its job.

Your second attempt here (less a failure than the first), is that {lo} is gnerally used to make general claims, but not always/ That is the meaning of {lo} that I have advocated for some time — even at the beginning of the species paper. It also does away with Mr. Broda codswallop and leaves {lo} and {su'o} materially equivalent still. I doubt that {zo'e} is more context sensitive than intersection, by the way — as I noted in the first revision.

I wonmdered what happened to Mr. Broda (I still do), but at least he has vanished after all this time. I hope that the lunacy that went with him has gone too, but vestiges (mild psychoses?) still seem to be around.
Jorge LlambĂ­as <jjllambias2000@yahoo.com.ar> wrote:
pc:
> Well, then {lo broda cu brode} means exactly the same thing as {su'o broda cu
> brode} — contrary to what you have often said — and I don't see what all
> the fuss was about.

We must be speaking different languages. I say that {lo broda cu brode}
makes no claim about instances, and from that you conclude that it's
exactly the same thing as making the claim about at least one instance.
{su'o da poi broda} is just not interreplaceable with {zo'e noi broda}.
One claim is much more precise than the other. Sometimes we want such
extra precision, sometimes we don't.

> Intersection is an attempt to make sense of your
> repeated claim that {lo broda cu brode} amd a general claim that {su'o broda
> cu brode} did not.

It can be used to make a more general claim, yes, in the right context.
{zo'e} is very context-sensitive. It does not always make a general claim.
If you present a sentence out of the blue with no context, the general
claim tends to be the first that comes to mind, that's all.

> If you no longer hold that view (which has beena peculiar
> one from the get-go), then we pretty much agree on everything and I can drop
> all of this except the renewed suggetion that , since you don't need it, you
> get rid of Mr. Broda.

I have no particular attachment to Mr Broda. He is not mentioned
in the proposed definitions.

mu'o mi'e xorxes




__
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Mail - 50x more storage than other providers!
http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail