[YG Conlang Archives] > [jboske group] > messages [Date Index] [Thread Index] >
de'i li 2002-10-24 ti'u li 13:24:00 la xorxes. cusku di'e
>>On the other hand, as I understand it, while 'broda lo'e brode' doesn't
>>imply that 'broda lo brode', 'broda lo brode' does imply that 'broda
>>lo'e brode'.
>
>I think there is no _logical_ implication, but I agree there
>is often some kind of implication. In other words, {su'o da
>zo'u broda tu'o du'u da brode} does not logically entail
>{broda tu'o du'u su'o da zo'u da brode}.
I'm not sure if there's a logical implication, but there's at least an implication in the same sense that, e.g. 'x debates jboske' implies that 'x is at least 3 years old', and so 'mi nelci lo'ei cakla' is far too general to be useful in translating 'I like chocolate.'
>>So, once again with chocolate, if one ordinarily dislikes
>>almost every piece of chocolate, but that last piece just hit the spot,
>>then 'nelci lo cakla' and thus 'nelci lo'e cakla' is true, though 'likes
>>chocolate' certainly isn't.
>
>I would describe that situation as:
>
> mi ta'e naku nelci lo'e cakla i ku'i mi nelci le vi cakla
> Typically it is not the case that I like chocolate, but
> I do like this chocolate.
That certainly describes the situation, but my point is that someone could say 'mi nelci lo'ei cakla' when they like chocolate or when they're thinking about that chocolate which they just had and liked, so if you hear 'mi nelci lo'ei cakla', you can't conclude that the speaker likes chocolate. At this point I think I would still like to use 'lo'e' for 'I like chococate', so I will search for another formalization of the meaning; And's looks more or less promising, and it also has the effect of giving a useful and o-gadri/e-gadri-like distinction between lo'e/loi'e and le'e/lei'e.
BTW, the book explicitly states that le'e is based on le'i just like lo'e is based on lo'i, so I don't know where And got the idea that the book's definition of le'e is not consistent with its being an e-gadri. Actually, looking it up, p. 126 (ch. 6 sec. 5) says: "The relationship between "lo'e cinfo" and "lo'i cinfo" may be explained thus: the typical lion is an imaginary lion-abstraction which best exemplifies the set of lions. There is a similar relationship between "le'e" and "le'i"." So it seems that And has restated CLL's definition of of lo'e and le'e, but gone one step towards solving the problem of imaginary things being in a regular relationship with real things.
mu'o mi'e .adam.