[YG Conlang Archives] > [jboske group] > messages [Date Index] [Thread Index] >
pc:
> a.rosta@hidden.email writes:
> <<
>
> 8. {lo'e} also serves the purposes that tu'o serves, if --
> Controversially -- {lo'e broda cu brode} means something like "If
> lo'i broda is conceptualized as singleton, then its membership is
> brode".
>
> 9. When {le'i broda} is singleton, it is useful to signal this, for
> the reasons under (5), and {le pa broda} is unattractive for reason
> (6b). Controversially, {le'e broda} refers to the membership of
> a specific set conceptualized as singleton.
>
> >>
> I take the previous seven comments as essentially agreeing with my
> summary and adding justification for the uses spelled out there, so
> they seem perfectly fine as practical devices without any
> implications about either meaning or metaphysics.
>
> 8 and 9, however, go far beyond that and without any visible
> justification. I don't see anything to suggest that we even have
> occasion to view lo'i broda as a singleton or (what it seems is
> really meant) as a myopiced individual and certainly not that {lo'e}
> is the way to do this. And similarly for {le'e}. That {lo'e} and
> {le'e} need some work is obvious from the variety of weird ideas
> floating around about them; that this is the right way to go is about
> as far from obvious as can be. And that it has anything to do with
> {tu'o} -- even by the rather spurious connection suggested here is
> more remote still.
I'll make a fuller reply in due course. I'm delighted that we agree
on points 1-7, & I fully agree that points 8-9 are controversial,
do not follow from 1-7, and have not been agreed on. I added them
just to complete the picture, for reference purposes.
--And.