[YG Conlang Archives] > [jboske group] > messages [Date Index] [Thread Index] >
| pc: << That's crazy. lo broda and ro broda have the property tu'o ce'u du lo broda, and that does not mean that lo broda cu du ro broda! >> Well, actually it does -- and you said it does just above. Now, it needs some unpacking, to be sure, but you have not explained how to unpack what you have said about, for example, {lo'e broda}. >> Oops! Lured into catatonia by your ongoing habit of treating complex terms as individual ones, I forgot your other habit of pulling out to more correct exprssions if it looked like trouble lay ahead. I think that, to be on the safe side, I can only say {ro broda cu du lo broda}, because, despite the way they are used in the above, both of these actually involve quantifiers and this seems a good time to pull that fact out and use it. It is not, of course, just that ro broda and lo broda have the same property that allows for the identification, it is the nature of the property as well. In passing I note that, although tu'o ka ce'u du lo broda, tu'o ka ce'u du lo'e broda and tu'o ka ce'u broda seem to be different properties, as far as any explanation of them has gone, it appears that they are necessarily coextensive -- which makes the notion of deiffence involved here somewhat obscure (though, given the nature of property systems, not impossible). It also means that the difference, if there is one, does not make a difference at any interesting point, since all the cases so far, at least, have come down eventually to extensions. |