[YG Conlang Archives] > [jboske group] > messages [Date Index] [Thread Index] >
pc:
> arosta@hidden.email writes:
> <<
>
> It comes about if that 'definition' is merely a gloss, and the definition is
> actually "(every) member of le'i broda" (nonimporting 'every').
>
> >>
> 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 was arguing that {le'i} can be {le'i no}. If {le} is defined in terms
of {le'i} then the referent-set of {le} cannot always be defined by
the individuals I have in mind. Essentially I want to argue that
(presupposition apart) {(ro) le ro broda} is equivalent to {ro co'e je
broda}, where sometimes co'e is to be understood as a shared property
and sometimes it is to be understood as "is John or Bill or Jim"
= "is a member of a certain ext-defined set".
> <<
> 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.
I don't know what meaning {ro} has as a cardinality indicator.
> The same is
> probably true of other relative PA in cardinality context.
Okay. so'e as a cardinal is not meaningless but is nonsensical.
> 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.
I agree. But I reckon that ro was chosen for the default in the
belief that it is tantamount to having no default.
--And.