Re: Mr. Bird has 2 wings (was: essentials of a gadri system)

la xod cusku di'e

> If we allow Mr. Bird to assume all the properties of every bird, one at a
> time, what is the use of such a concept?

We don't usually talk about irrelevant properties. When we talk about 
Xod, without further context, we don't usually mean 2-month-old-Xod.
Similarly, when we talk of Mr Bird without context we will talk only
of its most "characteristic" properties. But in a given context we
will talk of the properties it has in that context. It is not 
characteristic of birds that I see them, but if I see a bird then I'm 
seeing Mr Bird. So {mi roroi ca'o viska lo'e cipni} "at all times I am 
seeing birds" is false, but {mi su'oroi viska lo'e cipni} "sometimes I 
see birds" is perfectly true.

> I think that at one time, when lo'e was understood to mean "typical", mi
> viska lo'e cipni meant I saw something that had 2 wings. Mr. Bird
> sometimes has one wing; if I allow the lo'e cipni which I saw to be
> interpreted by others as possibly having one wing, it seems rather a
> useless concept.

{mi viska lo'e cipni} without context, is a very vague statement.
It can mean "I usually see birds", "I saw birds", "I am seeing a bird",
etc. We can disambiguate using more precise words, or maybe context
is enough, or maybe we don't need to be more precise. It is not a 
claim about a characteristic property of birds.

mu'o mi'e xorxes


__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
The New Yahoo! Search - Faster. Easier. Bingo.
http://search.yahoo.com