https://mw.lojban.org/index.php?title=Trobrianders&feed=atom&action=historyTrobrianders - Revision history2024-03-29T15:34:15ZRevision history for this page on the wikiMediaWiki 1.38.4https://mw.lojban.org/index.php?title=Trobrianders&diff=122520&oldid=prevMukti: /* Trobrianders or Wintu? */2017-12-28T16:47:04Z<p><span dir="auto"><span class="autocomment">Trobrianders or Wintu?</span></span></p>
<table style="background-color: #fff; color: #202122;" data-mw="interface">
<col class="diff-marker" />
<col class="diff-content" />
<col class="diff-marker" />
<col class="diff-content" />
<tr class="diff-title" lang="en">
<td colspan="2" style="background-color: #fff; color: #202122; text-align: center;">← Older revision</td>
<td colspan="2" style="background-color: #fff; color: #202122; text-align: center;">Revision as of 16:47, 28 December 2017</td>
</tr><tr><td colspan="2" class="diff-lineno" id="mw-diff-left-l15">Line 15:</td>
<td colspan="2" class="diff-lineno">Line 15:</td></tr>
<tr><td class="diff-marker"></td><td style="background-color: #f8f9fa; color: #202122; font-size: 88%; border-style: solid; border-width: 1px 1px 1px 4px; border-radius: 0.33em; border-color: #eaecf0; vertical-align: top; white-space: pre-wrap;"><div>== Trobrianders or Wintu? ==</div></td><td class="diff-marker"></td><td style="background-color: #f8f9fa; color: #202122; font-size: 88%; border-style: solid; border-width: 1px 1px 1px 4px; border-radius: 0.33em; border-color: #eaecf0; vertical-align: top; white-space: pre-wrap;"><div>== Trobrianders or Wintu? ==</div></td></tr>
<tr><td class="diff-marker"></td><td style="background-color: #f8f9fa; color: #202122; font-size: 88%; border-style: solid; border-width: 1px 1px 1px 4px; border-radius: 0.33em; border-color: #eaecf0; vertical-align: top; white-space: pre-wrap;"><br/></td><td class="diff-marker"></td><td style="background-color: #f8f9fa; color: #202122; font-size: 88%; border-style: solid; border-width: 1px 1px 1px 4px; border-radius: 0.33em; border-color: #eaecf0; vertical-align: top; white-space: pre-wrap;"><br/></td></tr>
<tr><td class="diff-marker" data-marker="−"></td><td style="color: #202122; font-size: 88%; border-style: solid; border-width: 1px 1px 1px 4px; border-radius: 0.33em; border-color: #ffe49c; vertical-align: top; white-space: pre-wrap;"><div>Brown's statement (in ''Sets and Masses'') that Dorothy Lee was "struck by the remarkable metaphysics" of the Trobrianders and that her related conjectures amounted to "something very like the [[Sapir-Whorf <del style="font-weight: bold; text-decoration: none;">hypothesis</del>]]" does bear out, e.g. in ''Lineal and Nonlineal Codifications of Reality'' (''Psychosomatic Medicine '', 1950). However, while Lee explicitly makes a case for "an absence of axiomatic lineal connection between events or objects in the Trobriand apprehension of reality," it's not clear if the habits of mass description which Brown attributes to the Trobrianders has basis in her work on Malinowski and the people of the Trobriand Islands.</div></td><td class="diff-marker" data-marker="+"></td><td style="color: #202122; font-size: 88%; border-style: solid; border-width: 1px 1px 1px 4px; border-radius: 0.33em; border-color: #a3d3ff; vertical-align: top; white-space: pre-wrap;"><div>Brown's statement (in ''Sets and Masses'') that Dorothy Lee was "struck by the remarkable metaphysics" of the Trobrianders and that her related conjectures amounted to "something very like the [[Sapir-Whorf <ins style="font-weight: bold; text-decoration: none;">Hypothesis</ins>]]" does bear out, e.g. in ''Lineal and Nonlineal Codifications of Reality'' (''Psychosomatic Medicine '', 1950). However, while Lee explicitly makes a case for "an absence of axiomatic lineal connection between events or objects in the Trobriand apprehension of reality," it's not clear if the habits of mass description which Brown attributes to the Trobrianders has basis in her work on Malinowski and the people of the Trobriand Islands.</div></td></tr>
<tr><td class="diff-marker"></td><td style="background-color: #f8f9fa; color: #202122; font-size: 88%; border-style: solid; border-width: 1px 1px 1px 4px; border-radius: 0.33em; border-color: #eaecf0; vertical-align: top; white-space: pre-wrap;"><br/></td><td class="diff-marker"></td><td style="background-color: #f8f9fa; color: #202122; font-size: 88%; border-style: solid; border-width: 1px 1px 1px 4px; border-radius: 0.33em; border-color: #eaecf0; vertical-align: top; white-space: pre-wrap;"><br/></td></tr>
<tr><td class="diff-marker"></td><td style="background-color: #f8f9fa; color: #202122; font-size: 88%; border-style: solid; border-width: 1px 1px 1px 4px; border-radius: 0.33em; border-color: #eaecf0; vertical-align: top; white-space: pre-wrap;"><div>On the other hand, Lee did write extensively on the role of the "generic" in [[Wintu]] language and culture, and in terms that suggest that Brown may have had Lee's Wintu people in mind when he described "Trobrianders" and "Mr. Rabbit". "To the Wintu," Lee wrote in ''Linguistic Reflection of Wintu Thought'' (1944), "the given is not a series of particulars, to be classed into universals. The given is unpartitioned mass; a part of this the Wintu delimits into a particular individual." In ''Categories of the Generic and the Particular in Wintu'' (1944), Lee writes that the primary, generic form of a Wintu noun "refers to a genus, to a kind of being; not, like the universal, to a class. … It is evident in their myths where Coyote, Bear, Dentalium come first and timelessly, whereas ''a'' coyote, the many different specific coyotes, come afterward, delimited as to time and circumstance."</div></td><td class="diff-marker"></td><td style="background-color: #f8f9fa; color: #202122; font-size: 88%; border-style: solid; border-width: 1px 1px 1px 4px; border-radius: 0.33em; border-color: #eaecf0; vertical-align: top; white-space: pre-wrap;"><div>On the other hand, Lee did write extensively on the role of the "generic" in [[Wintu]] language and culture, and in terms that suggest that Brown may have had Lee's Wintu people in mind when he described "Trobrianders" and "Mr. Rabbit". "To the Wintu," Lee wrote in ''Linguistic Reflection of Wintu Thought'' (1944), "the given is not a series of particulars, to be classed into universals. The given is unpartitioned mass; a part of this the Wintu delimits into a particular individual." In ''Categories of the Generic and the Particular in Wintu'' (1944), Lee writes that the primary, generic form of a Wintu noun "refers to a genus, to a kind of being; not, like the universal, to a class. … It is evident in their myths where Coyote, Bear, Dentalium come first and timelessly, whereas ''a'' coyote, the many different specific coyotes, come afterward, delimited as to time and circumstance."</div></td></tr>
<!-- diff cache key mediawiki:diff::1.12:old-122518:rev-122520 -->
</table>Muktihttps://mw.lojban.org/index.php?title=Trobrianders&diff=122518&oldid=prevMukti at 06:12, 28 December 20172017-12-28T06:12:49Z<p></p>
<table style="background-color: #fff; color: #202122;" data-mw="interface">
<col class="diff-marker" />
<col class="diff-content" />
<col class="diff-marker" />
<col class="diff-content" />
<tr class="diff-title" lang="en">
<td colspan="2" style="background-color: #fff; color: #202122; text-align: center;">← Older revision</td>
<td colspan="2" style="background-color: #fff; color: #202122; text-align: center;">Revision as of 06:12, 28 December 2017</td>
</tr><tr><td colspan="2" class="diff-lineno" id="mw-diff-left-l9">Line 9:</td>
<td colspan="2" class="diff-lineno">Line 9:</td></tr>
<tr><td class="diff-marker"></td><td style="background-color: #f8f9fa; color: #202122; font-size: 88%; border-style: solid; border-width: 1px 1px 1px 4px; border-radius: 0.33em; border-color: #eaecf0; vertical-align: top; white-space: pre-wrap;"><div>Brown traces the origin of mass description in Loglan to his reading of ''Word and Object'' and particularly to the "[[radical translation]]" thought experiment which establishes the "[[inscrutability of reference]]". Brown is interested in the argument that it is impossible to distinguish by means of a stimulus-response experiment, between "[[general term]]s" and "[[singular term]]s", or between general terms that designate, say, "whole enduring rabbits", and those which name "mere stage, or brief temporal segments, of rabbits", or even "the fusion, in [[Nelson Goodman|Goodman]]'s sense, of all rabbits: that single though discontinuous portion of the spatiotemporal world that consists of rabbits".</div></td><td class="diff-marker"></td><td style="background-color: #f8f9fa; color: #202122; font-size: 88%; border-style: solid; border-width: 1px 1px 1px 4px; border-radius: 0.33em; border-color: #eaecf0; vertical-align: top; white-space: pre-wrap;"><div>Brown traces the origin of mass description in Loglan to his reading of ''Word and Object'' and particularly to the "[[radical translation]]" thought experiment which establishes the "[[inscrutability of reference]]". Brown is interested in the argument that it is impossible to distinguish by means of a stimulus-response experiment, between "[[general term]]s" and "[[singular term]]s", or between general terms that designate, say, "whole enduring rabbits", and those which name "mere stage, or brief temporal segments, of rabbits", or even "the fusion, in [[Nelson Goodman|Goodman]]'s sense, of all rabbits: that single though discontinuous portion of the spatiotemporal world that consists of rabbits".</div></td></tr>
<tr><td class="diff-marker"></td><td style="background-color: #f8f9fa; color: #202122; font-size: 88%; border-style: solid; border-width: 1px 1px 1px 4px; border-radius: 0.33em; border-color: #eaecf0; vertical-align: top; white-space: pre-wrap;"><br/></td><td class="diff-marker"></td><td style="background-color: #f8f9fa; color: #202122; font-size: 88%; border-style: solid; border-width: 1px 1px 1px 4px; border-radius: 0.33em; border-color: #eaecf0; vertical-align: top; white-space: pre-wrap;"><br/></td></tr>
<tr><td class="diff-marker" data-marker="−"></td><td style="color: #202122; font-size: 88%; border-style: solid; border-width: 1px 1px 1px 4px; border-radius: 0.33em; border-color: #ffe49c; vertical-align: top; white-space: pre-wrap;"><div>In ''Sets and Masses'' (''Lognet'' 96/1) Brown suggests that "Quine probably had in mind the Trobriand Islanders" when discussing predicates that assert "the presence of some (specified) mass individual, and so enables claims that are said to be true when and only when some ''manifestation'' of that mass individual is present, e.g., when some manifestation of Mr. Rabbit, say a vanishing hindfoot of a particular rabbit, is present." The identification of <del style="font-weight: bold; text-decoration: none;">a tendency towards mass description </del>with the language of the Trobrianders does not seem to be justified by <del style="font-weight: bold; text-decoration: none;">the </del>footnotes to Malinowski or Lee.</div></td><td class="diff-marker" data-marker="+"></td><td style="color: #202122; font-size: 88%; border-style: solid; border-width: 1px 1px 1px 4px; border-radius: 0.33em; border-color: #a3d3ff; vertical-align: top; white-space: pre-wrap;"><div>In ''Sets and Masses'' (''Lognet'' 96/1) Brown suggests that "Quine probably had in mind the Trobriand Islanders" when discussing predicates that assert "the presence of some (specified) mass individual, and so enables claims that are said to be true when and only when some ''manifestation'' of that mass individual is present, e.g., when some manifestation of Mr. Rabbit, say a vanishing hindfoot of a particular rabbit, is present." The identification of <ins style="font-weight: bold; text-decoration: none;">the relevant passages in ''Word and Object'' </ins>with the language of the Trobrianders does not seem to be justified by <ins style="font-weight: bold; text-decoration: none;">Quine's </ins>footnotes to Malinowski<ins style="font-weight: bold; text-decoration: none;">, </ins>or <ins style="font-weight: bold; text-decoration: none;">indeed to </ins>Lee<ins style="font-weight: bold; text-decoration: none;">, whose cited work, ''Conceptual Implications of an Indian Language'' (1938), discusses not Trobrianders but the Wintu people of California</ins>.</div></td></tr>
<tr><td class="diff-marker"></td><td style="background-color: #f8f9fa; color: #202122; font-size: 88%; border-style: solid; border-width: 1px 1px 1px 4px; border-radius: 0.33em; border-color: #eaecf0; vertical-align: top; white-space: pre-wrap;"><br/></td><td class="diff-marker"></td><td style="background-color: #f8f9fa; color: #202122; font-size: 88%; border-style: solid; border-width: 1px 1px 1px 4px; border-radius: 0.33em; border-color: #eaecf0; vertical-align: top; white-space: pre-wrap;"><br/></td></tr>
<tr><td class="diff-marker"></td><td style="background-color: #f8f9fa; color: #202122; font-size: 88%; border-style: solid; border-width: 1px 1px 1px 4px; border-radius: 0.33em; border-color: #eaecf0; vertical-align: top; white-space: pre-wrap;"><div>Kilivila is a "classifier language", which per Gunter Senft (''What Do We Really Know About Nominal Classification Systems'', 2000), means that its nouns can be characterized as making generic reference. Classificatory particles "individualize nominal concepts" represented by the nouns in such language: "They mark that a noun they refer to must be understood as having non-generic reference." [[John Cowan]] has noted that Kilivila's use of classifiers is not distinctive in its treatment of [[mass noun]]s from relatively less exotic languages such as Chinese, Japanese, and Burmese.</div></td><td class="diff-marker"></td><td style="background-color: #f8f9fa; color: #202122; font-size: 88%; border-style: solid; border-width: 1px 1px 1px 4px; border-radius: 0.33em; border-color: #eaecf0; vertical-align: top; white-space: pre-wrap;"><div>Kilivila is a "classifier language", which per Gunter Senft (''What Do We Really Know About Nominal Classification Systems'', 2000), means that its nouns can be characterized as making generic reference. Classificatory particles "individualize nominal concepts" represented by the nouns in such language: "They mark that a noun they refer to must be understood as having non-generic reference." [[John Cowan]] has noted that Kilivila's use of classifiers is not distinctive in its treatment of [[mass noun]]s from relatively less exotic languages such as Chinese, Japanese, and Burmese.</div></td></tr>
<tr><td colspan="2" class="diff-lineno" id="mw-diff-left-l17">Line 17:</td>
<td colspan="2" class="diff-lineno">Line 17:</td></tr>
<tr><td class="diff-marker"></td><td style="background-color: #f8f9fa; color: #202122; font-size: 88%; border-style: solid; border-width: 1px 1px 1px 4px; border-radius: 0.33em; border-color: #eaecf0; vertical-align: top; white-space: pre-wrap;"><div>Brown's statement (in ''Sets and Masses'') that Dorothy Lee was "struck by the remarkable metaphysics" of the Trobrianders and that her related conjectures amounted to "something very like the [[Sapir-Whorf hypothesis]]" does bear out, e.g. in ''Lineal and Nonlineal Codifications of Reality'' (''Psychosomatic Medicine '', 1950). However, while Lee explicitly makes a case for "an absence of axiomatic lineal connection between events or objects in the Trobriand apprehension of reality," it's not clear if the habits of mass description which Brown attributes to the Trobrianders has basis in her work on Malinowski and the people of the Trobriand Islands.</div></td><td class="diff-marker"></td><td style="background-color: #f8f9fa; color: #202122; font-size: 88%; border-style: solid; border-width: 1px 1px 1px 4px; border-radius: 0.33em; border-color: #eaecf0; vertical-align: top; white-space: pre-wrap;"><div>Brown's statement (in ''Sets and Masses'') that Dorothy Lee was "struck by the remarkable metaphysics" of the Trobrianders and that her related conjectures amounted to "something very like the [[Sapir-Whorf hypothesis]]" does bear out, e.g. in ''Lineal and Nonlineal Codifications of Reality'' (''Psychosomatic Medicine '', 1950). However, while Lee explicitly makes a case for "an absence of axiomatic lineal connection between events or objects in the Trobriand apprehension of reality," it's not clear if the habits of mass description which Brown attributes to the Trobrianders has basis in her work on Malinowski and the people of the Trobriand Islands.</div></td></tr>
<tr><td class="diff-marker"></td><td style="background-color: #f8f9fa; color: #202122; font-size: 88%; border-style: solid; border-width: 1px 1px 1px 4px; border-radius: 0.33em; border-color: #eaecf0; vertical-align: top; white-space: pre-wrap;"><br/></td><td class="diff-marker"></td><td style="background-color: #f8f9fa; color: #202122; font-size: 88%; border-style: solid; border-width: 1px 1px 1px 4px; border-radius: 0.33em; border-color: #eaecf0; vertical-align: top; white-space: pre-wrap;"><br/></td></tr>
<tr><td class="diff-marker" data-marker="−"></td><td style="color: #202122; font-size: 88%; border-style: solid; border-width: 1px 1px 1px 4px; border-radius: 0.33em; border-color: #ffe49c; vertical-align: top; white-space: pre-wrap;"><div>On the other hand, Lee did write extensively on the role of the "generic" in [[Wintu]] language and culture, and in terms that suggest that Brown may have had Lee's Wintu people in mind when he described "Trobrianders" and "Mr. Rabbit". <del style="font-weight: bold; text-decoration: none;">And it was one of Lee's writings on the Wintu, ''Conceptual Implications of an Indian Language'' (1938), that Quine cited in ''Word and Object''.</del></div></td><td class="diff-marker" data-marker="+"></td><td style="color: #202122; font-size: 88%; border-style: solid; border-width: 1px 1px 1px 4px; border-radius: 0.33em; border-color: #a3d3ff; vertical-align: top; white-space: pre-wrap;"><div>On the other hand, Lee did write extensively on the role of the "generic" in [[Wintu]] language and culture, and in terms that suggest that Brown may have had Lee's Wintu people in mind when he described "Trobrianders" and "Mr. Rabbit". "To the Wintu," Lee wrote in ''Linguistic Reflection of Wintu Thought'' (1944), "the given is not a series of particulars, to be classed into universals. The given is unpartitioned mass; a part of this the Wintu delimits into a particular individual." In ''Categories of the Generic and the Particular in Wintu'' (1944), Lee writes that the primary, generic form of a Wintu noun "refers to a genus, to a kind of being; not, like the universal, to a class. … It is evident in their myths where Coyote, Bear, Dentalium come first and timelessly, whereas ''a'' coyote, the many different specific coyotes, come afterward, delimited as to time and circumstance."</div></td></tr>
<tr><td class="diff-marker" data-marker="−"></td><td style="color: #202122; font-size: 88%; border-style: solid; border-width: 1px 1px 1px 4px; border-radius: 0.33em; border-color: #ffe49c; vertical-align: top; white-space: pre-wrap;"><div> </div></td><td colspan="2" class="diff-side-added"></td></tr>
<tr><td class="diff-marker" data-marker="−"></td><td style="color: #202122; font-size: 88%; border-style: solid; border-width: 1px 1px 1px 4px; border-radius: 0.33em; border-color: #ffe49c; vertical-align: top; white-space: pre-wrap;"><div>"To the Wintu," Lee wrote in ''Linguistic Reflection of Wintu Thought'' (1944), "the given is not a series of particulars, to be classed into universals. The given is unpartitioned mass; a part of this the Wintu delimits into a particular individual." In ''Categories of the Generic and the Particular in Wintu'' (1944), Lee writes that the primary, generic form of a Wintu noun "refers to a genus, to a kind of being; not, like the universal, to a class. … It is evident in their myths where Coyote, Bear, Dentalium come first and timelessly, whereas ''a'' coyote, the many different specific coyotes, come afterward, delimited as to time and circumstance."</div></td><td colspan="2" class="diff-side-added"></td></tr>
<!-- diff cache key mediawiki:diff::1.12:old-122517:rev-122518 -->
</table>Muktihttps://mw.lojban.org/index.php?title=Trobrianders&diff=122517&oldid=prevMukti: /* Trobrianders or Wintu? */2017-12-28T06:05:09Z<p><span dir="auto"><span class="autocomment">Trobrianders or Wintu?</span></span></p>
<table style="background-color: #fff; color: #202122;" data-mw="interface">
<col class="diff-marker" />
<col class="diff-content" />
<col class="diff-marker" />
<col class="diff-content" />
<tr class="diff-title" lang="en">
<td colspan="2" style="background-color: #fff; color: #202122; text-align: center;">← Older revision</td>
<td colspan="2" style="background-color: #fff; color: #202122; text-align: center;">Revision as of 06:05, 28 December 2017</td>
</tr><tr><td colspan="2" class="diff-lineno" id="mw-diff-left-l19">Line 19:</td>
<td colspan="2" class="diff-lineno">Line 19:</td></tr>
<tr><td class="diff-marker"></td><td style="background-color: #f8f9fa; color: #202122; font-size: 88%; border-style: solid; border-width: 1px 1px 1px 4px; border-radius: 0.33em; border-color: #eaecf0; vertical-align: top; white-space: pre-wrap;"><div>On the other hand, Lee did write extensively on the role of the "generic" in [[Wintu]] language and culture, and in terms that suggest that Brown may have had Lee's Wintu people in mind when he described "Trobrianders" and "Mr. Rabbit". And it was one of Lee's writings on the Wintu, ''Conceptual Implications of an Indian Language'' (1938), that Quine cited in ''Word and Object''.</div></td><td class="diff-marker"></td><td style="background-color: #f8f9fa; color: #202122; font-size: 88%; border-style: solid; border-width: 1px 1px 1px 4px; border-radius: 0.33em; border-color: #eaecf0; vertical-align: top; white-space: pre-wrap;"><div>On the other hand, Lee did write extensively on the role of the "generic" in [[Wintu]] language and culture, and in terms that suggest that Brown may have had Lee's Wintu people in mind when he described "Trobrianders" and "Mr. Rabbit". And it was one of Lee's writings on the Wintu, ''Conceptual Implications of an Indian Language'' (1938), that Quine cited in ''Word and Object''.</div></td></tr>
<tr><td class="diff-marker"></td><td style="background-color: #f8f9fa; color: #202122; font-size: 88%; border-style: solid; border-width: 1px 1px 1px 4px; border-radius: 0.33em; border-color: #eaecf0; vertical-align: top; white-space: pre-wrap;"><br/></td><td class="diff-marker"></td><td style="background-color: #f8f9fa; color: #202122; font-size: 88%; border-style: solid; border-width: 1px 1px 1px 4px; border-radius: 0.33em; border-color: #eaecf0; vertical-align: top; white-space: pre-wrap;"><br/></td></tr>
<tr><td class="diff-marker" data-marker="−"></td><td style="color: #202122; font-size: 88%; border-style: solid; border-width: 1px 1px 1px 4px; border-radius: 0.33em; border-color: #ffe49c; vertical-align: top; white-space: pre-wrap;"><div>"To the Wintu," Lee wrote in ''Linguistic Reflection of Wintu Thought'' (1944), "the given is not a series of particulars, to be classed into universals. The given is unpartitioned mass; a part of this the Wintu delimits into a particular individual." In ''Categories of the Generic and the Particular in Wintu'' (1944), Lee writes that the primary, generic form of a noun "refers to a genus, to a kind of being; not, like the universal, to a class. … It is evident in their myths where Coyote, Bear, Dentalium come first and timelessly, whereas ''a'' coyote, the many different specific coyotes, come afterward, delimited as to time and circumstance."</div></td><td class="diff-marker" data-marker="+"></td><td style="color: #202122; font-size: 88%; border-style: solid; border-width: 1px 1px 1px 4px; border-radius: 0.33em; border-color: #a3d3ff; vertical-align: top; white-space: pre-wrap;"><div>"To the Wintu," Lee wrote in ''Linguistic Reflection of Wintu Thought'' (1944), "the given is not a series of particulars, to be classed into universals. The given is unpartitioned mass; a part of this the Wintu delimits into a particular individual." In ''Categories of the Generic and the Particular in Wintu'' (1944), Lee writes that the primary, generic form of a <ins style="font-weight: bold; text-decoration: none;">Wintu </ins>noun "refers to a genus, to a kind of being; not, like the universal, to a class. … It is evident in their myths where Coyote, Bear, Dentalium come first and timelessly, whereas ''a'' coyote, the many different specific coyotes, come afterward, delimited as to time and circumstance."</div></td></tr>
<!-- diff cache key mediawiki:diff::1.12:old-122516:rev-122517 -->
</table>Muktihttps://mw.lojban.org/index.php?title=Trobrianders&diff=122516&oldid=prevMukti: New section for Wintu hypothesis2017-12-28T06:04:24Z<p>New section for Wintu hypothesis</p>
<table style="background-color: #fff; color: #202122;" data-mw="interface">
<col class="diff-marker" />
<col class="diff-content" />
<col class="diff-marker" />
<col class="diff-content" />
<tr class="diff-title" lang="en">
<td colspan="2" style="background-color: #fff; color: #202122; text-align: center;">← Older revision</td>
<td colspan="2" style="background-color: #fff; color: #202122; text-align: center;">Revision as of 06:04, 28 December 2017</td>
</tr><tr><td colspan="2" class="diff-lineno" id="mw-diff-left-l11">Line 11:</td>
<td colspan="2" class="diff-lineno">Line 11:</td></tr>
<tr><td class="diff-marker"></td><td style="background-color: #f8f9fa; color: #202122; font-size: 88%; border-style: solid; border-width: 1px 1px 1px 4px; border-radius: 0.33em; border-color: #eaecf0; vertical-align: top; white-space: pre-wrap;"><div>In ''Sets and Masses'' (''Lognet'' 96/1) Brown suggests that "Quine probably had in mind the Trobriand Islanders" when discussing predicates that assert "the presence of some (specified) mass individual, and so enables claims that are said to be true when and only when some ''manifestation'' of that mass individual is present, e.g., when some manifestation of Mr. Rabbit, say a vanishing hindfoot of a particular rabbit, is present." The identification of a tendency towards mass description with the language of the Trobrianders does not seem to be justified by the footnotes to Malinowski or Lee.</div></td><td class="diff-marker"></td><td style="background-color: #f8f9fa; color: #202122; font-size: 88%; border-style: solid; border-width: 1px 1px 1px 4px; border-radius: 0.33em; border-color: #eaecf0; vertical-align: top; white-space: pre-wrap;"><div>In ''Sets and Masses'' (''Lognet'' 96/1) Brown suggests that "Quine probably had in mind the Trobriand Islanders" when discussing predicates that assert "the presence of some (specified) mass individual, and so enables claims that are said to be true when and only when some ''manifestation'' of that mass individual is present, e.g., when some manifestation of Mr. Rabbit, say a vanishing hindfoot of a particular rabbit, is present." The identification of a tendency towards mass description with the language of the Trobrianders does not seem to be justified by the footnotes to Malinowski or Lee.</div></td></tr>
<tr><td class="diff-marker"></td><td style="background-color: #f8f9fa; color: #202122; font-size: 88%; border-style: solid; border-width: 1px 1px 1px 4px; border-radius: 0.33em; border-color: #eaecf0; vertical-align: top; white-space: pre-wrap;"><br/></td><td class="diff-marker"></td><td style="background-color: #f8f9fa; color: #202122; font-size: 88%; border-style: solid; border-width: 1px 1px 1px 4px; border-radius: 0.33em; border-color: #eaecf0; vertical-align: top; white-space: pre-wrap;"><br/></td></tr>
<tr><td class="diff-marker" data-marker="−"></td><td style="color: #202122; font-size: 88%; border-style: solid; border-width: 1px 1px 1px 4px; border-radius: 0.33em; border-color: #ffe49c; vertical-align: top; white-space: pre-wrap;"><div>Brown's statement (<del style="font-weight: bold; text-decoration: none;">also </del>in ''Sets and Masses'') that Dorothy Lee was "struck by the remarkable metaphysics" of the Trobrianders and that her related conjectures amounted to "something very like the [[Sapir-Whorf hypothesis]]" does bear out, e.g. in ''Lineal and Nonlineal Codifications of Reality'' (''Psychosomatic Medicine '', 1950). However, while Lee explicitly makes a case for "an absence of axiomatic lineal connection between events or objects in the Trobriand apprehension of reality," it's not clear if the habits of mass description which Brown attributes to the Trobrianders has basis in her work on Malinowski and the people of the Trobriand Islands.</div></td><td class="diff-marker" data-marker="+"></td><td style="color: #202122; font-size: 88%; border-style: solid; border-width: 1px 1px 1px 4px; border-radius: 0.33em; border-color: #a3d3ff; vertical-align: top; white-space: pre-wrap;"><div><ins style="font-weight: bold; text-decoration: none;">Kilivila is a "classifier language", which per Gunter Senft (''What Do We Really Know About Nominal Classification Systems'', 2000), means that its nouns can be characterized as making generic reference. Classificatory particles "individualize nominal concepts" represented by the nouns in such language: "They mark that a noun they refer to must be understood as having non-generic reference." [[John Cowan]] has noted that Kilivila's use of classifiers is not distinctive in its treatment of [[mass noun]]s from relatively less exotic languages such as Chinese, Japanese, and Burmese.</ins></div></td></tr>
<tr><td colspan="2" class="diff-side-deleted"></td><td class="diff-marker" data-marker="+"></td><td style="color: #202122; font-size: 88%; border-style: solid; border-width: 1px 1px 1px 4px; border-radius: 0.33em; border-color: #a3d3ff; vertical-align: top; white-space: pre-wrap;"><div> </div></td></tr>
<tr><td colspan="2" class="diff-side-deleted"></td><td class="diff-marker" data-marker="+"></td><td style="color: #202122; font-size: 88%; border-style: solid; border-width: 1px 1px 1px 4px; border-radius: 0.33em; border-color: #a3d3ff; vertical-align: top; white-space: pre-wrap;"><div><ins style="font-weight: bold; text-decoration: none;">== Trobrianders or Wintu? ==</ins></div></td></tr>
<tr><td colspan="2" class="diff-side-deleted"></td><td class="diff-marker" data-marker="+"></td><td style="color: #202122; font-size: 88%; border-style: solid; border-width: 1px 1px 1px 4px; border-radius: 0.33em; border-color: #a3d3ff; vertical-align: top; white-space: pre-wrap;"><div> </div></td></tr>
<tr><td colspan="2" class="diff-side-deleted"></td><td class="diff-marker" data-marker="+"></td><td style="color: #202122; font-size: 88%; border-style: solid; border-width: 1px 1px 1px 4px; border-radius: 0.33em; border-color: #a3d3ff; vertical-align: top; white-space: pre-wrap;"><div>Brown's statement (in ''Sets and Masses'') that Dorothy Lee was "struck by the remarkable metaphysics" of the Trobrianders and that her related conjectures amounted to "something very like the [[Sapir-Whorf hypothesis]]" does bear out, e.g. in ''Lineal and Nonlineal Codifications of Reality'' (''Psychosomatic Medicine '', 1950). However, while Lee explicitly makes a case for "an absence of axiomatic lineal connection between events or objects in the Trobriand apprehension of reality," it's not clear if the habits of mass description which Brown attributes to the Trobrianders has basis in her work on Malinowski and the people of the Trobriand Islands.</div></td></tr>
<tr><td class="diff-marker"></td><td style="background-color: #f8f9fa; color: #202122; font-size: 88%; border-style: solid; border-width: 1px 1px 1px 4px; border-radius: 0.33em; border-color: #eaecf0; vertical-align: top; white-space: pre-wrap;"><br/></td><td class="diff-marker"></td><td style="background-color: #f8f9fa; color: #202122; font-size: 88%; border-style: solid; border-width: 1px 1px 1px 4px; border-radius: 0.33em; border-color: #eaecf0; vertical-align: top; white-space: pre-wrap;"><br/></td></tr>
<tr><td class="diff-marker" data-marker="−"></td><td style="color: #202122; font-size: 88%; border-style: solid; border-width: 1px 1px 1px 4px; border-radius: 0.33em; border-color: #ffe49c; vertical-align: top; white-space: pre-wrap;"><div><del style="font-weight: bold; text-decoration: none;">Kilivila is a "classifier language"</del>, <del style="font-weight: bold; text-decoration: none;">which per Gunter Senft (''What Do We Really Know About Nominal Classification Systems'', 2000), means that its nouns can be characterized as making generic reference. Classificatory particles "individualize nominal concepts" represented by </del>the <del style="font-weight: bold; text-decoration: none;">nouns in such language: </del>"<del style="font-weight: bold; text-decoration: none;">They mark that a noun they refer to must be understood as having non-</del>generic <del style="font-weight: bold; text-decoration: none;">reference.</del>" [[<del style="font-weight: bold; text-decoration: none;">John Cowan</del>]] <del style="font-weight: bold; text-decoration: none;">has noted </del>that <del style="font-weight: bold; text-decoration: none;">Kilivila</del>'s <del style="font-weight: bold; text-decoration: none;">use of classifiers is not distinctive </del>in <del style="font-weight: bold; text-decoration: none;">its treatment </del>of <del style="font-weight: bold; text-decoration: none;">[[mass noun]]</del>s <del style="font-weight: bold; text-decoration: none;">from relatively less exotic languages such as Chinese</del>, <del style="font-weight: bold; text-decoration: none;">Japanese</del>, and <del style="font-weight: bold; text-decoration: none;">Burmese</del>.</div></td><td class="diff-marker" data-marker="+"></td><td style="color: #202122; font-size: 88%; border-style: solid; border-width: 1px 1px 1px 4px; border-radius: 0.33em; border-color: #a3d3ff; vertical-align: top; white-space: pre-wrap;"><div><ins style="font-weight: bold; text-decoration: none;">On the other hand</ins>, <ins style="font-weight: bold; text-decoration: none;">Lee did write extensively on the role of </ins>the "generic" <ins style="font-weight: bold; text-decoration: none;">in </ins>[[<ins style="font-weight: bold; text-decoration: none;">Wintu</ins>]] <ins style="font-weight: bold; text-decoration: none;">language and culture, and in terms </ins>that <ins style="font-weight: bold; text-decoration: none;">suggest that Brown may have had Lee</ins>'s <ins style="font-weight: bold; text-decoration: none;">Wintu people </ins>in <ins style="font-weight: bold; text-decoration: none;">mind when he described "Trobrianders" and "Mr. Rabbit". And it was one </ins>of <ins style="font-weight: bold; text-decoration: none;">Lee'</ins>s <ins style="font-weight: bold; text-decoration: none;">writings on the Wintu</ins>, <ins style="font-weight: bold; text-decoration: none;">''Conceptual Implications of an Indian Language'' (1938)</ins>, <ins style="font-weight: bold; text-decoration: none;">that Quine cited in ''Word </ins>and <ins style="font-weight: bold; text-decoration: none;">Object''</ins>.</div></td></tr>
<tr><td class="diff-marker"></td><td style="background-color: #f8f9fa; color: #202122; font-size: 88%; border-style: solid; border-width: 1px 1px 1px 4px; border-radius: 0.33em; border-color: #eaecf0; vertical-align: top; white-space: pre-wrap;"><br/></td><td class="diff-marker"></td><td style="background-color: #f8f9fa; color: #202122; font-size: 88%; border-style: solid; border-width: 1px 1px 1px 4px; border-radius: 0.33em; border-color: #eaecf0; vertical-align: top; white-space: pre-wrap;"><br/></td></tr>
<tr><td class="diff-marker" data-marker="−"></td><td style="color: #202122; font-size: 88%; border-style: solid; border-width: 1px 1px 1px 4px; border-radius: 0.33em; border-color: #ffe49c; vertical-align: top; white-space: pre-wrap;"><div><del style="font-weight: bold; text-decoration: none;">Lee did write extensively on the role of the "generic" in [[Wintu]] language and culture, and in terms that suggest that Brown may have had Lee's Wintu people in mind when he described "Trobrianders" and "Mr. Rabbit". The "Indian Language" referred to by the paper of Lee's which was cited by Quine in ''Word and Object'', is the Wintu language. </del>"To the Wintu," Lee wrote in ''Linguistic Reflection of Wintu Thought'' (1944), "the given is not a series of particulars, to be classed into universals. The given is unpartitioned mass; a part of this the Wintu delimits into a particular individual." In ''Categories of the Generic and the Particular in Wintu'' (1944), Lee writes that the primary, generic form of a noun "refers to a genus, to a kind of being; not, like the universal, to a class. … It is evident in their myths where Coyote, Bear, Dentalium come first and timelessly, whereas ''a'' coyote, the many different specific coyotes, come afterward, delimited as to time and circumstance."</div></td><td class="diff-marker" data-marker="+"></td><td style="color: #202122; font-size: 88%; border-style: solid; border-width: 1px 1px 1px 4px; border-radius: 0.33em; border-color: #a3d3ff; vertical-align: top; white-space: pre-wrap;"><div>"To the Wintu," Lee wrote in ''Linguistic Reflection of Wintu Thought'' (1944), "the given is not a series of particulars, to be classed into universals. The given is unpartitioned mass; a part of this the Wintu delimits into a particular individual." In ''Categories of the Generic and the Particular in Wintu'' (1944), Lee writes that the primary, generic form of a noun "refers to a genus, to a kind of being; not, like the universal, to a class. … It is evident in their myths where Coyote, Bear, Dentalium come first and timelessly, whereas ''a'' coyote, the many different specific coyotes, come afterward, delimited as to time and circumstance."</div></td></tr>
<!-- diff cache key mediawiki:diff::1.12:old-122515:rev-122516 -->
</table>Muktihttps://mw.lojban.org/index.php?title=Trobrianders&diff=122515&oldid=prevMukti: /* Mass description */ Quine's citation of Lee refers to writings on Wintu, not Trobrianders2017-12-28T05:57:26Z<p><span dir="auto"><span class="autocomment">Mass description: </span> Quine's citation of Lee refers to writings on Wintu, not Trobrianders</span></p>
<table style="background-color: #fff; color: #202122;" data-mw="interface">
<col class="diff-marker" />
<col class="diff-content" />
<col class="diff-marker" />
<col class="diff-content" />
<tr class="diff-title" lang="en">
<td colspan="2" style="background-color: #fff; color: #202122; text-align: center;">← Older revision</td>
<td colspan="2" style="background-color: #fff; color: #202122; text-align: center;">Revision as of 05:57, 28 December 2017</td>
</tr><tr><td colspan="2" class="diff-lineno" id="mw-diff-left-l15">Line 15:</td>
<td colspan="2" class="diff-lineno">Line 15:</td></tr>
<tr><td class="diff-marker"></td><td style="background-color: #f8f9fa; color: #202122; font-size: 88%; border-style: solid; border-width: 1px 1px 1px 4px; border-radius: 0.33em; border-color: #eaecf0; vertical-align: top; white-space: pre-wrap;"><div>Kilivila is a "classifier language", which per Gunter Senft (''What Do We Really Know About Nominal Classification Systems'', 2000), means that its nouns can be characterized as making generic reference. Classificatory particles "individualize nominal concepts" represented by the nouns in such language: "They mark that a noun they refer to must be understood as having non-generic reference." [[John Cowan]] has noted that Kilivila's use of classifiers is not distinctive in its treatment of [[mass noun]]s from relatively less exotic languages such as Chinese, Japanese, and Burmese.</div></td><td class="diff-marker"></td><td style="background-color: #f8f9fa; color: #202122; font-size: 88%; border-style: solid; border-width: 1px 1px 1px 4px; border-radius: 0.33em; border-color: #eaecf0; vertical-align: top; white-space: pre-wrap;"><div>Kilivila is a "classifier language", which per Gunter Senft (''What Do We Really Know About Nominal Classification Systems'', 2000), means that its nouns can be characterized as making generic reference. Classificatory particles "individualize nominal concepts" represented by the nouns in such language: "They mark that a noun they refer to must be understood as having non-generic reference." [[John Cowan]] has noted that Kilivila's use of classifiers is not distinctive in its treatment of [[mass noun]]s from relatively less exotic languages such as Chinese, Japanese, and Burmese.</div></td></tr>
<tr><td class="diff-marker"></td><td style="background-color: #f8f9fa; color: #202122; font-size: 88%; border-style: solid; border-width: 1px 1px 1px 4px; border-radius: 0.33em; border-color: #eaecf0; vertical-align: top; white-space: pre-wrap;"><br/></td><td class="diff-marker"></td><td style="background-color: #f8f9fa; color: #202122; font-size: 88%; border-style: solid; border-width: 1px 1px 1px 4px; border-radius: 0.33em; border-color: #eaecf0; vertical-align: top; white-space: pre-wrap;"><br/></td></tr>
<tr><td class="diff-marker" data-marker="−"></td><td style="color: #202122; font-size: 88%; border-style: solid; border-width: 1px 1px 1px 4px; border-radius: 0.33em; border-color: #ffe49c; vertical-align: top; white-space: pre-wrap;"><div>Lee did write extensively on the role of the "generic" in [[Wintu]] language and culture, and in terms that suggest that Brown may have had Lee's Wintu people in mind when he described "Trobrianders" and "Mr. Rabbit". "To the Wintu," Lee wrote in ''Linguistic Reflection of Wintu Thought'' (1944), "the given is not a series of particulars, to be classed into universals. The given is unpartitioned mass; a part of this the Wintu delimits into a particular individual." In ''Categories of the Generic and the Particular in Wintu'' (1944), Lee writes that the primary, generic form of a noun "refers to a genus, to a kind of being; not, like the universal, to a class. … It is evident in their myths where Coyote, Bear, Dentalium come first and timelessly, whereas ''a'' coyote, the many different specific coyotes, come afterward, delimited as to time and circumstance."</div></td><td class="diff-marker" data-marker="+"></td><td style="color: #202122; font-size: 88%; border-style: solid; border-width: 1px 1px 1px 4px; border-radius: 0.33em; border-color: #a3d3ff; vertical-align: top; white-space: pre-wrap;"><div>Lee did write extensively on the role of the "generic" in [[Wintu]] language and culture, and in terms that suggest that Brown may have had Lee's Wintu people in mind when he described "Trobrianders" and "Mr. Rabbit"<ins style="font-weight: bold; text-decoration: none;">. The "Indian Language" referred to by the paper of Lee's which was cited by Quine in ''Word and Object'', is the Wintu language</ins>. "To the Wintu," Lee wrote in ''Linguistic Reflection of Wintu Thought'' (1944), "the given is not a series of particulars, to be classed into universals. The given is unpartitioned mass; a part of this the Wintu delimits into a particular individual." In ''Categories of the Generic and the Particular in Wintu'' (1944), Lee writes that the primary, generic form of a noun "refers to a genus, to a kind of being; not, like the universal, to a class. … It is evident in their myths where Coyote, Bear, Dentalium come first and timelessly, whereas ''a'' coyote, the many different specific coyotes, come afterward, delimited as to time and circumstance."</div></td></tr>
</table>Muktihttps://mw.lojban.org/index.php?title=Trobrianders&diff=122514&oldid=prevMukti: /* Mass description */ Additional details on classifier languages and Lee/Wintu2017-12-28T05:51:53Z<p><span dir="auto"><span class="autocomment">Mass description: </span> Additional details on classifier languages and Lee/Wintu</span></p>
<table style="background-color: #fff; color: #202122;" data-mw="interface">
<col class="diff-marker" />
<col class="diff-content" />
<col class="diff-marker" />
<col class="diff-content" />
<tr class="diff-title" lang="en">
<td colspan="2" style="background-color: #fff; color: #202122; text-align: center;">← Older revision</td>
<td colspan="2" style="background-color: #fff; color: #202122; text-align: center;">Revision as of 05:51, 28 December 2017</td>
</tr><tr><td colspan="2" class="diff-lineno" id="mw-diff-left-l9">Line 9:</td>
<td colspan="2" class="diff-lineno">Line 9:</td></tr>
<tr><td class="diff-marker"></td><td style="background-color: #f8f9fa; color: #202122; font-size: 88%; border-style: solid; border-width: 1px 1px 1px 4px; border-radius: 0.33em; border-color: #eaecf0; vertical-align: top; white-space: pre-wrap;"><div>Brown traces the origin of mass description in Loglan to his reading of ''Word and Object'' and particularly to the "[[radical translation]]" thought experiment which establishes the "[[inscrutability of reference]]". Brown is interested in the argument that it is impossible to distinguish by means of a stimulus-response experiment, between "[[general term]]s" and "[[singular term]]s", or between general terms that designate, say, "whole enduring rabbits", and those which name "mere stage, or brief temporal segments, of rabbits", or even "the fusion, in [[Nelson Goodman|Goodman]]'s sense, of all rabbits: that single though discontinuous portion of the spatiotemporal world that consists of rabbits".</div></td><td class="diff-marker"></td><td style="background-color: #f8f9fa; color: #202122; font-size: 88%; border-style: solid; border-width: 1px 1px 1px 4px; border-radius: 0.33em; border-color: #eaecf0; vertical-align: top; white-space: pre-wrap;"><div>Brown traces the origin of mass description in Loglan to his reading of ''Word and Object'' and particularly to the "[[radical translation]]" thought experiment which establishes the "[[inscrutability of reference]]". Brown is interested in the argument that it is impossible to distinguish by means of a stimulus-response experiment, between "[[general term]]s" and "[[singular term]]s", or between general terms that designate, say, "whole enduring rabbits", and those which name "mere stage, or brief temporal segments, of rabbits", or even "the fusion, in [[Nelson Goodman|Goodman]]'s sense, of all rabbits: that single though discontinuous portion of the spatiotemporal world that consists of rabbits".</div></td></tr>
<tr><td class="diff-marker"></td><td style="background-color: #f8f9fa; color: #202122; font-size: 88%; border-style: solid; border-width: 1px 1px 1px 4px; border-radius: 0.33em; border-color: #eaecf0; vertical-align: top; white-space: pre-wrap;"><br/></td><td class="diff-marker"></td><td style="background-color: #f8f9fa; color: #202122; font-size: 88%; border-style: solid; border-width: 1px 1px 1px 4px; border-radius: 0.33em; border-color: #eaecf0; vertical-align: top; white-space: pre-wrap;"><br/></td></tr>
<tr><td class="diff-marker" data-marker="−"></td><td style="color: #202122; font-size: 88%; border-style: solid; border-width: 1px 1px 1px 4px; border-radius: 0.33em; border-color: #ffe49c; vertical-align: top; white-space: pre-wrap;"><div>In <del style="font-weight: bold; text-decoration: none;">"</del>Sets and Masses<del style="font-weight: bold; text-decoration: none;">" </del>(Lognet 96/1) Brown suggests that "Quine probably had in mind the Trobriand Islanders" when discussing predicates that assert "the presence of some (specified) mass individual, and so enables claims that are said to be true when and only when some ''manifestation'' of that mass individual is present, e.g., when some manifestation of Mr. Rabbit, say a vanishing hindfoot of a particular rabbit, is present." The identification of a tendency towards mass description with the language of the Trobrianders does not seem to be justified by the footnotes to Malinowski or Lee. <del style="font-weight: bold; text-decoration: none;">Nor </del>does <del style="font-weight: bold; text-decoration: none;">a similar feature stand </del>out <del style="font-weight: bold; text-decoration: none;">when perusing Gunter Senft</del>'<del style="font-weight: bold; text-decoration: none;">s 1952 grammar</del>, '<del style="font-weight: bold; text-decoration: none;">'Kilivila: The Language </del>of the Trobriand <del style="font-weight: bold; text-decoration: none;">Islanders</del>''. [[John Cowan]] has noted that Kilivila's use of classifiers is not distinctive in its treatment of [[mass noun]]s from relatively less exotic languages such as Chinese, Japanese, and Burmese.</div></td><td class="diff-marker" data-marker="+"></td><td style="color: #202122; font-size: 88%; border-style: solid; border-width: 1px 1px 1px 4px; border-radius: 0.33em; border-color: #a3d3ff; vertical-align: top; white-space: pre-wrap;"><div>In <ins style="font-weight: bold; text-decoration: none;">''</ins>Sets and Masses<ins style="font-weight: bold; text-decoration: none;">'' </ins>(<ins style="font-weight: bold; text-decoration: none;">''</ins>Lognet<ins style="font-weight: bold; text-decoration: none;">'' </ins>96/1) Brown suggests that "Quine probably had in mind the Trobriand Islanders" when discussing predicates that assert "the presence of some (specified) mass individual, and so enables claims that are said to be true when and only when some ''manifestation'' of that mass individual is present, e.g., when some manifestation of Mr. Rabbit, say a vanishing hindfoot of a particular rabbit, is present." The identification of a tendency towards mass description with the language of the Trobrianders does not seem to be justified by the footnotes to Malinowski or Lee.</div></td></tr>
<tr><td colspan="2" class="diff-side-deleted"></td><td class="diff-marker" data-marker="+"></td><td style="color: #202122; font-size: 88%; border-style: solid; border-width: 1px 1px 1px 4px; border-radius: 0.33em; border-color: #a3d3ff; vertical-align: top; white-space: pre-wrap;"><div> </div></td></tr>
<tr><td colspan="2" class="diff-side-deleted"></td><td class="diff-marker" data-marker="+"></td><td style="color: #202122; font-size: 88%; border-style: solid; border-width: 1px 1px 1px 4px; border-radius: 0.33em; border-color: #a3d3ff; vertical-align: top; white-space: pre-wrap;"><div><ins style="font-weight: bold; text-decoration: none;">Brown's statement (also in ''Sets and Masses'') that Dorothy Lee was "struck by the remarkable metaphysics" of the Trobrianders and that her related conjectures amounted to "something very like the [[Sapir-Whorf hypothesis]]" </ins>does <ins style="font-weight: bold; text-decoration: none;">bear </ins>out<ins style="font-weight: bold; text-decoration: none;">, e.g. in ''Lineal and Nonlineal Codifications of Reality'' (''Psychosomatic Medicine '</ins>', <ins style="font-weight: bold; text-decoration: none;">1950). However, while Lee explicitly makes a case for "an absence of axiomatic lineal connection between events or objects in the Trobriand apprehension of reality," it</ins>'<ins style="font-weight: bold; text-decoration: none;">s not clear if the habits of mass description which Brown attributes to the Trobrianders has basis in her work on Malinowski and the people </ins>of the Trobriand <ins style="font-weight: bold; text-decoration: none;">Islands.</ins></div></td></tr>
<tr><td colspan="2" class="diff-side-deleted"></td><td class="diff-marker" data-marker="+"></td><td style="color: #202122; font-size: 88%; border-style: solid; border-width: 1px 1px 1px 4px; border-radius: 0.33em; border-color: #a3d3ff; vertical-align: top; white-space: pre-wrap;"><div> </div></td></tr>
<tr><td colspan="2" class="diff-side-deleted"></td><td class="diff-marker" data-marker="+"></td><td style="color: #202122; font-size: 88%; border-style: solid; border-width: 1px 1px 1px 4px; border-radius: 0.33em; border-color: #a3d3ff; vertical-align: top; white-space: pre-wrap;"><div><ins style="font-weight: bold; text-decoration: none;">Kilivila is a "classifier language", which per Gunter Senft (''What Do We Really Know About Nominal Classification Systems</ins>''<ins style="font-weight: bold; text-decoration: none;">, 2000), means that its nouns can be characterized as making generic reference. Classificatory particles "individualize nominal concepts" represented by the nouns in such language: "They mark that a noun they refer to must be understood as having non-generic reference</ins>.<ins style="font-weight: bold; text-decoration: none;">" </ins>[[John Cowan]] has noted that Kilivila's use of classifiers is not distinctive in its treatment of [[mass noun]]s from relatively less exotic languages such as Chinese, Japanese, and Burmese.</div></td></tr>
<tr><td colspan="2" class="diff-side-deleted"></td><td class="diff-marker" data-marker="+"></td><td style="color: #202122; font-size: 88%; border-style: solid; border-width: 1px 1px 1px 4px; border-radius: 0.33em; border-color: #a3d3ff; vertical-align: top; white-space: pre-wrap;"><div> </div></td></tr>
<tr><td colspan="2" class="diff-side-deleted"></td><td class="diff-marker" data-marker="+"></td><td style="color: #202122; font-size: 88%; border-style: solid; border-width: 1px 1px 1px 4px; border-radius: 0.33em; border-color: #a3d3ff; vertical-align: top; white-space: pre-wrap;"><div><ins style="font-weight: bold; text-decoration: none;">Lee did write extensively on the role of the "generic" in [[Wintu]] language and culture, and in terms that suggest that Brown may have had Lee's Wintu people in mind when he described "Trobrianders" and "Mr. Rabbit". "To the Wintu," Lee wrote in ''Linguistic Reflection of Wintu Thought'' (1944), "the given is not a series of particulars, to be classed into universals. The given is unpartitioned mass; a part of this the Wintu delimits into a particular individual." In ''Categories of the Generic and the Particular in Wintu'' (1944), Lee writes that the primary, generic form of a noun "refers to a genus, to a kind of being; not, like the universal, to a class. … It is evident in their myths where Coyote, Bear, Dentalium come first and timelessly, whereas ''a'' coyote, the many different specific coyotes, come afterward, delimited as to time and circumstance."</ins></div></td></tr>
</table>Muktihttps://mw.lojban.org/index.php?title=Trobrianders&diff=122513&oldid=prevMukti: draft2017-12-28T01:45:34Z<p>draft</p>
<p><b>New page</b></p><div>'''Trobrianders''' are the inhabitants of the Trobriand or Kiriwina Islands, an archipelago belonging to Papua New Guinea. Trobrianders speak the Kilivila language, which belongs to the Malayo-Polynesian family of Austronesian languages. In the context of [[Loglan]], discussion of Trobrianders usually references aspects of a worldview said to be implicit in the language of the islanders, as understood by [[James Cooke Brown]] based on his reading of the works of anthropologists Bronisław Malinowski and Dorothy D. Lee and his understanding of the use of those works by [[Willard van Orman Quine]] in ''[[Word and Object]]'' (1960). Malinowski's ''Coral Gardens And Their Magic'' (1935) and Lee's ''Conceptual Implications of an Indian Language'' (1938) are cited in ''Word and Object'', but it's not clear if Malinowski, Lee, or Quine attributed the same features to the Trobrianders and their language as is suggested by Brown.<br />
<br />
== Mass description ==<br />
<br />
In ''[[Loglan 1]]'', in the section entitled ''Mass Description with lo'', JCB wrote: <blockquote>the languages of some preliterate peoples apparently employ the idea of mass description as the elementary meaning of their basic predicate words. Thus the Trobriand Islanders are reported to place this interpretation on all their nouns; whence the curious world-view arises that what we Indo-Europeans would call a single instance of a thing is, to them, nothing but a part, or reappearance, or manifestation of the same, massive individual thing. Thus every rabbit is just another appearance of [[Mr. Rabbit]]; every yam just another manifestation of Mr. Yam; every baby just a part of Mr. Baby all over again</blockquote><br />
<br />
Brown proposes that Loglan's "mass designator" operator, ''lo'' (analogous to Lojban's mass descriptor, ''[[loi]]'') provides a facility to describe the world in a similar fashion, and that a Trobriander who learned Loglan might prefer to use mass descriptions and ''lo'' where a native English speaker would employ "particular descriptions" via ''le''.<br />
<br />
Brown traces the origin of mass description in Loglan to his reading of ''Word and Object'' and particularly to the "[[radical translation]]" thought experiment which establishes the "[[inscrutability of reference]]". Brown is interested in the argument that it is impossible to distinguish by means of a stimulus-response experiment, between "[[general term]]s" and "[[singular term]]s", or between general terms that designate, say, "whole enduring rabbits", and those which name "mere stage, or brief temporal segments, of rabbits", or even "the fusion, in [[Nelson Goodman|Goodman]]'s sense, of all rabbits: that single though discontinuous portion of the spatiotemporal world that consists of rabbits".<br />
<br />
In "Sets and Masses" (Lognet 96/1) Brown suggests that "Quine probably had in mind the Trobriand Islanders" when discussing predicates that assert "the presence of some (specified) mass individual, and so enables claims that are said to be true when and only when some ''manifestation'' of that mass individual is present, e.g., when some manifestation of Mr. Rabbit, say a vanishing hindfoot of a particular rabbit, is present." The identification of a tendency towards mass description with the language of the Trobrianders does not seem to be justified by the footnotes to Malinowski or Lee. Nor does a similar feature stand out when perusing Gunter Senft's 1952 grammar, ''Kilivila: The Language of the Trobriand Islanders''. [[John Cowan]] has noted that Kilivila's use of classifiers is not distinctive in its treatment of [[mass noun]]s from relatively less exotic languages such as Chinese, Japanese, and Burmese.</div>Mukti