[YG Conlang Archives] > [engelang group] > messages [Date Index] [Thread Index] >
On Sun, Oct 14, 2012 at 3:07 PM, John E Clifford <kali9putra@hidden.email> wrote: > ________________________________ > From: Jorge Llambías <jjllambias@hidden.email> > > Then notice that we can always replace "la ccca" by "la je ccca nu > ddda" and "le je ccce ddde" by "le je ccce ni ddde" so that the x1 > and x2 of a quantifier can always be filled by two almost identical > expressions, differening only in ni/nu. > > This replacement seems illegitimate if are trying to preserve form, since > you are replacing ccc by two different things. I'm replacing "ccca" by "je ccca nu ddda", which is legitimate because "nu ddda" is a tautology. > I admit that I don't see the > point of this, since I don't see the difference between farmers that have > donkeys and farmers that have donkeys whether or not they beat them. There's no difference, that's why you can replace one with the other. > I > suppose it is somehow to get around the problem of donkey sentences, but I > don't see exactly how it is done in a satisfactory way -- at best it seems > to say that there are more farmers that have donkey they beat than there are > farmers that don't have donkeys they beat (including those with no donkeys > at all). No, it compares farmers that have donkeys and beat them versus farmers that have donkeys whether or not they beat them. Farmers that don't have donkeys never enter into it. > Ah, but I see that you have inserted the ni'u inside the scope the > quantifier, making the interesting case even less like the pattern. The > issue of fusion within scope differences probably needs some examination. > It may be that this technique actually works, but it is not clearly > justified by this explanation. Not sure what you mean. What's the objection? > So instead of "la prna le li ckli nlceki mstake" we can say "la je > prna ni'u li ckli nlcaki msta", which uses one fewer variable, > > But adds a superfluous connective of some sort and changes the predicate > without warning -- not good logical moves. Why without warning? One is a unary predicate and the other is a binary predicates, and that is shown by the number of variables. > lo je ckfa ni'u ldra prfra'aka > "I prefer my coffee with milk." > (From the choices of coffee whether with milk or not with milk, I > prefer coffee WITH milk.) > > Do we also get nu'i for the negative preference? Since "ni'u" is "ni" compared to "nu", if we wanted something for "na" compareed to "nu" I'd suggest "na'u" rather than "nu'i". But we can just use "ni'u na". co ma'a xrxe