[YG Conlang Archives] > [jboske group] > messages [Date Index] [Thread Index] >
And Rosta scripsit:
> I forget whether CLL actually says {le} means {su'o pa le}. The
> dialect I speak definitely has it meaning {ro le}.
"le" means "ro le su'o", so And is correct. The reason for the "su'o"
is that the set "le" refers to can't be empty, so on pc's view "ro le ro"
would be just as good.
> Anyway, it is certainly true that {le broda} makes no claim about
> the cardinality of {le'i broda}.
Not so. It makes the claim that the cardinality is nonzero.
> But -- usage aside -- I do think
> it implies "it is not the case that the cardinality of le'i
> broda is 1 and that the addressee can be expected to know this".
This strikes me as utterly bogus. You should not use le'i broda when you
have in mind a singleton set? How is the listener to know how many brodas
you have in mind?
Or did you mean "lo'i broda is not a singleton"?
--
If you have ever wondered if you are in hell, John Cowan
it has been said, then you are on a well-traveled http://www.ccil.org/~cowan
road of spiritual inquiry. If you are absolutely http://www.reutershealth.com
sure you are in hell, however, then you must be jcowan@hidden.email
on the Cross Bronx Expressway. --Alan Feur, NYTimes, 2002-09-20