[YG Conlang Archives] > [engelang group] > messages [Date Index] [Thread Index] >
On Tue, Sep 4, 2012 at 11:04 PM, And Rosta <and.rosta@hidden.email> wrote: > Jorge Llambías, On 05/09/2012 02:17: > > > > How general is vV? I'm not too happy with an operator that only makes > > sense when used in conjunction with a single specific predicate. Can't > > we generalize it somehow? It seems to be related to "respectively" in > > some way. > > Related to "respectively" how? I'm not sure, just that it creates a reference to two states of affairs with ni/nu respectively. > To refresh my memory: > > "la fa si frmri su xslu je pnsiku va drxiku lo msto dnksntncako > "most is the propertion of states of affairs in which "si frmri su dnku je > pnsiku nu drxiku" is the case that are states of affairs in which "si > frmri > su dnku je pnsiku ne drxiku" is the case" > where vV is a bound unary operator whose sole function (but a vital and > necessary one) is to do donkey sentences." > > That could be simplified to > "la fa si frmri su xslu je pnsiku va drxiku msta" > [Where "most" is no longer the number "most" but is a fusion of mst and > dnksntnc] I'm now thinking that this doesn't really capture the "most farmers" sentence, because it fails to distinguish between "most farmers who own a donkey beat it" and "most donkeys owned by a farmer get beaten by them". In the extreme cases (one farmer owning most donkeys and beating them while the rest of the farmers don't beat theirs, or one poor donkey owned by most farmers, who beat it, while the rest of the donkeys are not beaten by their owners). Although I suppose you could do: la je frmra se xsle je pnsake va drxake msta Farmers that for some donkey they own it and they beat it are most of the farmers that for some donkey they own it whether or not they beat it. This can also be reordered: la msta je frmra se xsle je pnsake va drxake In most cases, farmers that for some donkey they own it, they (also) beat it. > Here vV is bound by fV. The generalization could (roughly and fumblingly) > be that the complement of the binder of vV expresses two propositions at > once, one with vV replaced by nu, and one with vV replaced by ne (= ja'a). > The binder can then be argument of any predicate that specifies a > relationship between these two propositions. Does "msta" express a relationship between two propositions, or between the two values that "a" takes (whether they be states of affairs or farmers). So: la va na blba msta "Most things are not white." (The number of things not white relative to the number of things whether white or not is most.) Or: la msta va na blba Most things are not white. > I suppose you could use vV for conditionals in general. E.g. > > If I see you I'll greet you > > la fa je vska'aka'e va rnsa'aka'e rra > "All cases of me seeing you whether or not I greet you are cases of me > seeing you and greeting you" > > Also > All swans are white > la fa li je svni va blbi rra > "all cases of there being swans that are or aren't white are cases of > there being swans that are white" Or: la je svna va blba rra "The swans that are white are all the swans whether white or not." Or: la rra je svna va blba In all cases, swans are white. > Maybe you can take these ideas and generalize further? It's still something that only seems to work together with fractional quantifier predicates. ma'a xrxe