[YG Conlang Archives] > [jboske group] > messages [Date Index] [Thread Index] >
Adam:
> 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',
Only a slight exaggeration. IIRC Greg is about 16 and Rob about 18.
> and so 'mi nelci lo'ei cakla' is far too general to be useful in
> translating 'I like chocolate.'
Yes. It's really useful for "I need chocolate", though.
> 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
I'm glad of this, but it would be possible to define a le'ei counterpart
to lo'ei -- xorxes and I were discussing it yesterday.
> 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.
If {le'e} = "the stereotypical", then it is not the e-gadri counterpart
of {lo'e}.
> 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
This is good news.
The way They got to "stereotypical" must have been thus:
lo'e = x really is the typical exemplar of lo'i
le'e = x is described as the typical exemplar of lo'i
But of course it should instead be:
le'e = x really is the typical exemplar of le'i
--And.