[YG Conlang Archives] > [jboske group] > messages [Date Index] [Thread Index] >
On Thu, 10 Oct 2002 pycyn@hidden.email wrote:
> 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
> > in terms of {le nu la godziras cu cadzu} and {le du'u ce'u
> > tumla se desku}?
> >>
> 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.
>
...
> 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.]
This is a good point. I never understood it myself, I just took it on
faith that you logickers knew what you were talking about.
from an earlier post, pc wrote:
> Indeed, what got smacked down last time was any attempt to regularize
> the thr relation between {ka} and {du'u}. As for {ka} with all its
> places filled (which was only touched on in the last go-round), nothing
> requires (or even suggests) that the properties described in that usage
> be subjective: earth shaking, for example, is clearly objective--
> everyone can see it, instruments can record it, and so on.
Do you intend your usage of ka to abstract out EVERY possible quality
associated with that bridi? Or just one or two of them, and without a clue
to the reader which one(s)? Concrete example: Godzilla's Walk is
historical as well as being earthshaking.
This is why I've repeatedly insisted that the ce'u-less ka, which is your
"item 1" above, is ill-defined. You yourself admit that it refers to a
class of properties, not a single property. What use is it?
Unless we can use ka me la godziras; "all the qualities of Godzilla", to
mean the identity of Godzilla; something I've been hacking with su'u gy.
co'e kei be lo kamsevzi, in my perpetual obsession with finding ways to
avoid makau.
--
Before Sept. 11 there was not the present excited talk about a strike
on Iraq. There is no evidence of any connection between Iraq and that
act of terrorism. Why would that event change the situation?
-- Howard Zinn