tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Mon Oct 19 17:19:15 1998
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
To-Be or not To-Be that "is" the fallacious question
- From: "Bryan Potratz" <[email protected]>
- Subject: To-Be or not To-Be that "is" the fallacious question
- Date: Mon, 19 Oct 1998 17:20:45 -0700
The more I look at tlhIngan-Hol the more I lean toward the opinion that we
should avoid the inherent problems of "to-be" all together. (I believe MO
tried not to use it until Undiscovered Country...)
See E'/General Semantics - fallacy of Identity and Predication
ja' charghwI' (with IGS/E' edits...)
"My name *may be classified as* a verb." As "Will" I can say that.
"My name *may be classified as* a common word."
"My name *may be classified as* a statement of intent."
"My name *may be classified as* a word comprised of single syllable."
"My name *may be classified as* the thing I call myself."
"My name *may be classified as* the least important thing about me."
"My name is *comprised of* difficult sounds to make for person's of oriental
first language."
"My name is *used as* the password to my ship's self-destruct system."
"My name *has the same phonetic structure as* my father's name."
"My name is *comprised of* this collection of phonemes."
"My name is *represented by* that shape on a page."
"My name is..." not anything other than a sonic or written representation of
the concept of the identity of my person. So we can invent 'em as we will,
with no (or few anyway) grammatical constraints... {{;-)
Therefore - "I call myself Allan."
Qapla'
Bryan Potratz - lomqa'
mailto:[email protected]
http://barney.gonzaga.edu/~bpotratz/