Re: Re: lo and intension (was: essentials of a gadri system)

xod:
> On Tue, 5 Aug 2003, And Rosta wrote:
>
> > xod:
> > > > > (la'e-like) I can have a certain set of characteristics in mind --
a
> > > > > prototype! -- and discuss interchangables that fit the profile.
The
> > > > > latter is "I need a doctor", "I like chocolate". Nonspecific, and
> > > > > countable.
> > > > >
> > > > > Is the latter lo? Some sort of lo'e? Mister?
> > > >
> > > > Mister isn't the set of characteristics or the interchangeables that
fit
> > > > it, but on the whole we felt that Mister is the best way to talk
about
> > > > needing doctors and liking chocolate.
> > >
> > > When I ask for a Doctor and like Chocolate, I am not talking about
Mister,
> > > because Mister includes Doctor Frankenstein and very poor quality
> > > chocolate.
> >
> > When I ask for xod & like xod, I am talking about xod, even though xod
> > includes xod-on-the-one-day-per-decade-when-he-is-not-likable. In other
> > words, we like the whole individual Mr Chocolate and the whole
individual
> > xod, even though each might have bits we don't like.
>
> Well, if that's the case, then Mister = Typical, and CLL-lo'e = Jorge
> lo'e.

I don't think "xod" = "typical xod". If I see a dreadlockless xod, I still
see xod, even though I don't see typical xod. (My concept of xod here; I'm
not presuming expertise in xodology.) Ergo, Mister != Typical.

As xorxes (&, less cogently, me too) has been saying, context determines
how felicitous it is to describe as individual X a bit of X. The more
typical of X the bit of X is, the less dependent on context is the
felicity.

--And.