[YG Conlang Archives] > [jboske group] > messages [Date Index] [Thread Index] >
la pycyn cusku di'e
jjllambias@hidden.email writes: << > I see no difference between: > (1) ko'a goi lo broda cu brode > and: > (2) ko'a goi da poi broda cu brode > To me they make identical assignments to {ko'a}. I don't think > there is any stronger hint of plurality in (1) than in (2). >> The second is logic and thus, like logic, has a singular interpretation, though plurality does not falsify it. Instantiation is automaticallysingular. The first is Lojban and has the standard Lojban inspecific (hence normally plural) interpretation. This carries over to the anaphora, which isnot instantiation.
To me they are both Lojban. I still don't see what the difference
is supposed to be. In what sense is {ko'a} plural in (1)? What
would for example this mean:
ko'a goi lo prenu cu nelci lo'e cakla
Some people, ko'a, like chocolate.
...
i ko'a xabju le friko
ko'a live(s) in Africa.
Doesn't that say that at least one person likes chocolate
and lives in Africa? Or are you saying that it says that
everyone who likes chocolate lives in Africa?
[...]
No, {piro} mass is not a singluar term in the requisite sense -- it is just a way of talking about the brodas collectively. As for its being transparent, I am afraid I still don't see why: If it is not the case that the whole mass of broda do brode, then surely some part of that mass must not brode. Maybethe whole, but no guarantees.
The whole is one thing, so if it is not the case that the whole does brode, then the whole does not brode. Parts play no role here. naku lei ci nanmu cu bevri le pipno It is not the case that the three men carried the piano. is equivalent to: lei ci nanmu naku bevri le pipno The three men did not carry the piano. mu'o mi'e xorxes _________________________________________________________________Add photos to your e-mail with MSN 8. Get 2 months FREE*. http://join.msn.com/?page=features/featuredemail