[YG Conlang Archives] > [jboske group] > messages [Date Index] [Thread Index] >
| In a message dated 11/6/2002 8:45:30 AM Central Standard Time, arosta@hidden.email writes: << It comes about if that 'definition' is merely a gloss, and the definition is >> How does this help? {le'i broda} is merely the set of things selected and called broda -- no more property required here than elsewhere. << I understand tu'o as lacking any meaning of its own. >> OK. But {ro} does have a meaning. Admittedly that meaning is vacuously fulfilled by any (non-empty at least) set, but that does not reduce it to meaninglessness, only to pointlessness. The same is probably true of other relative PA in cardinality context. It would seem that this is a further argument (or the same one in a different guise) for not having default crdinality but merely having cardinality as an optional category there. This would solve a mass of problems, it seems to me -- as well as being more realistic. |