[YG Conlang Archives] > [jboske group] > messages [Date Index] [Thread Index] >
la and cusku di'e
> > > If a feast lasts for seven days, it can be seen as happening on
> > > seven days. Analogously, if I line up a row of logs side by
> > > side and lie on them, I can be seen as lying on (or being
> > > located at) each of the logs.
> >
> > I'd say {ze'a le djedi be li ze} or {ze'a lei ze djedi}
> > and {ve'a lei ze grana}.
> >
> > Also {ca le ze djedi} and {bu'u le re grana} would work, yes.
>
> How do you see the difference between them?
ze'a/ve'a give the duration/range of the event. The sumti
is fully coincides with the event.
ca/bu'u only indicate a point in common.
{mi citka lo plise ca le cabdei}, I ate an apple today, but it
probably didn't take me the whole day to eat it, that would be
{mi citka lo plise ze'a le cabdei}.
If a feast lasts for seven days, then, unless it was intermitent,
indicating that it has a point of coincidence with each of seven
days (not the same point for each day, obviously) pretty much
indicates its duration as well, though not directly.
> > But the sumti of {roi} is for the interval over which the
> > number of instances repeat, not for the duration of the event.
>
> Okay. Should that sumti be quantified at all, then? It seems
> to me that, logically, it should be something like
> {lo'e du'u ke'a djedi li ze}.
It won't be quantified from the point of view of the tag.
mi klama le zarci paroi le pavdei
ije mi klama le zarci paroi le reldei
-> mi klama le zarci ge paroi le pavdei gi paroi le reldei
-> mi klama le zarci paroi le pavdei e le reldei
-> mi klama le zarci paroi ro le re djedi
> > It doesn't mean that if we allow
> > overlapping minutes, I agree. Is that the objection?
>
> That wasn't my objection, but in fact it is quite a good objection!
Actually, not so good, because (assuming neverending uniform
rotation) every minute will have one rotation, even though the
rotations will start at different points for different minutes.
> But what I meant was that when I say "I clean my teeth twice
> a day [or: twice every day]", I don't mean that during every
> day I clean my teeth twice. For example, before I was born I
> didn't clean my teeth. Now of course Grice means that this
> usually wouldn't be a communication problem, but on the whole
> I would prefer that what is said is what is meant.
We can say {paroi ro le mentu} to restrict to the relevant minutes.
We could also say {paroi lo'e mentu} and see all repetitions as one.
> > > If so, then you could formulate {roi} as {fi'o ra'inrapli be li
pa
> > > fo'a}, and prove your point using that reformulation.
> >
> > Yes, that's good, though I think I want to keep the quantifier
> > vis-a-vis the rest of the terms in the bridi.
>
> Just to help me get my head round your proposal/argument, could
> you essay such a reformulation using fi'o, for my benefit?
I don't think I can, because I want the number to keep its
quantifier nature for whatever follows. I want:
<Q2> roi <Q1> broda <Q2> brode
to export the quantifiers to the prenex in order Q1, Q2, Q3,
so that <Q2> roi acts as a normal selbri towards <Q1> broda,
but at the same time has scope over the following terms.
mu'o mi'e xorxes