[YG Conlang Archives] > [jboske group] > messages [Date Index] [Thread Index] >
la pycyn cusku di'e
You do want the device for specifying a function to specify the right function after all and also to be informative.
You can do that in more standard ways than having two places
for the same argument. Using {po'u} for instance. I take it
that using the name in x4 and the more informative expression
in x1 of fancu is as acceptable as the other way around?
I dsuppose that {smuni}works more or less the same way, and there are probably others with this kindof role to play.
No, {smuni} is precisely the opposite: If {ko'a smuni ko'e}, then
normally not {ko'a du ko'e}.
Actually there are two tendencies in the use of {smuni}, neither
of which has x1=x2. In one use, {smuni} is used as "word/expression
x1 has the same meaning as word/expression x2", where x1 and x2 are
different texts, so not the same arguments at all. The other tendency
(which I think is more correct) has a text in x2, and a du'u
("the meaning") in x1. With this tendency, the "is a synonym of"
relationship is simply {smuni mintu} or {smuni dunli}.
<(And having domain and range instead of values belonging to the domain and range in x2 and x3 is even more objectionable.)>Now here I worry about whether we are in a terminological muddle. Why is itbetter to say, for fancu2 fancu 3, {ro da poi numcu ku'o de poi numcu} than {lo'e numcu lo'e numcu}?
I take it you mean {lo'i numcu}. {lo'e numcu}, the archetype number,
is perfectly fine in my preferred way.
I can, of course, see the advantage of saying (ro da poi numcu ku'o le sumji be da bei li pa}, but, as I have said, I thinkthis complicates things and and muddles two things together that I would want to keep separate (mainly because I want to talk about ranges even when I haveno idea how to do the computations).
You gave one possibility above: using {lo'e}. And who says you
can't talk about ranges unless you have a place for the range
in the place structure of {fancu}? The difficulties come when
you don't have a place for the values. I said in a previous
post that {lo'i te fancu} was the range in my interpretation,
but that's not necessarily so, it is the image of the domain,
which only has to be a subset of the range. How do you talk
about the image in your interpretation?
Instead of {fy fancu lo'i namcu lo'i namcu} you can say
{fy fancu ro namcu pa namcu}. Which also allows you to say
{fy fancu li pa li cici} if you need to single out that value.
How do you say that with the domain/range definition?
I would think that the mapping metaphor naturally applied to regions, not points. In any case, I don't find the present arrangement objectionable.
I do, but in any case I'm very glad the different approaches
are becoming more clear. So far every use of {fancu} seemed to
come up with a different understanding of the place structure.
mu'o mi'e xorxes
_________________________________________________________________
Chat with friends online, try MSN Messenger: http://messenger.msn.com