[YG Conlang Archives] > [jboske group] > messages [Date Index] [Thread Index] >
| In a message dated 10/10/2002 11:45:12 AM Central Daylight Time, jjllambias@hidden.email writes: << So, when would we use the quality-ka? And how is it defined >> Well, the task of making sense of things in CLL just ratcheted up a notch, I think. Item 1. {ka ko'a broda} (assuming {broda} one-placed for simplicity) is a predicate and so refers to a class of properties, exactly those which are had by the "thing" le nu ko'a broda: lo'i se ckaji le nu ko'a broda. {le ka ko'a broda} is then the property/ies I have in mind out of the set. Item 2. I suppose that le du'u ce'u tumla se desku kei ka la godziras cadzu and so le du'u ce'u tumla se desku kei se ckaji le nu la godziras cadzu. Item 3. I am not sure what follows from this or where we would use {ka [bridi]} rather than other locutions that cover the same ground. But I did feel, when I was writing the preceding, that some of the tricks required for non-existent objects were clearer on this terminology. This feeling did not eventuate in a formulation that made the case, however. It may be only that {ka [bridi]} is shorter than {se ckaji le nu [bridi]} BTW, thinking about {ce'u} in {ni} phrases got me rethinking {ka} and {du'u} with {ce'u}, to the point where I am not so sure that they really are the same. The extension of {ka ce'u broda} is presumably a set of things, lo'i broda, in fact. The extension of {le du'u ce'u broda} is evidently a set of propositions, all of those that result from placing a sumti in for {ce'u} (in particular, not just the true ones). I have to admit that I cannot bring together these two claims in a single coherent explanation of what {ce'u} does nor in what sense {ka} and {du'u} and the like form predicates (i.e., references to sets of things) and yet they seem to be the the common wisdom about them. [It is this kind of belated worries that lojbab was complaining about in regard to the setting up of some of thes categories for CLL.] |