[YG Conlang Archives] > [jboske group] > messages [Date Index] [Thread Index] >
John:
> 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.
Put it this way: {le broda} does not make claims about the
cardinality of its referent. But it does have a referent.
> > 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"?
Whoops. Sorry -- yes, I meant "lo'i broda is not a singleton".
--And.