[YG Conlang Archives] > [jboske group] > messages [Date Index] [Thread Index] >
| In a message dated 11/6/2002 1:23:38 PM Central Standard Time, jjllambias@hidden.email writes: << The whole is one thing, so if it is not the case that the whole >> Suppose our three men are a, b and c. Then {pisu'o lei ci nanmu cu bevri le pipno} amounts to { abu po'o bevri le pipno [A] ija by po'o bevri le pipno [B] ija cy po'o bevri le pipno [C] ija abu joi by bevri le pipno [D] ija by joi cy bevri le pipno [E] ija abu joi cy bevri le pipno [F] ija abu joi by joi cy bevri le pipno [G]} (This "amounts to" is what I mean by saying that {le broda} does not name an individual but talks about a set of individuals collectively -- and it is in this sense only that quantifiers stand for individuals). If we move on to {pira'eci lei ci nanmu cu bevri le pipno} can only mean {A ija B ija C}. If we move on to {pira'exa lei ci nanmu cu bevri le pipno}, we come to a parting of the ways: this certainly {D ija E ija F} but it may also add {ija ge A gi B ija ge A gi C ija ge A gi C}. Which of these seems more plausible seems to depend upon what the bridi type is: the first seems more natural for processes, for example (carried the piano from the store to my place), the second for activities (carried the piano around). The same is true for {piro lei ci nanmu cu bevri le pipno} = {G [ija ge D gi E ija ge E gi F ija ge D gi F ija gege A gi B gi C] (and, if we were really trying to be precise, {ija ge D gi C ija ge E gi A ija ge F gi B}). I take it xorxes understands these expressions in their simplest expansions, in which case (assuming that {joi} requires actual participation), his negation move is correct. Of course, even this implies {pisu'o lei ci nanmu naku bevri le pipno}. I leave it to someone else to work out what negating either of the longer versions works out to. They also entail {pisu'o lei ci nanmu naku bevri le pipno} and maybe also some interesting disjunction of other cases, including {pino} without {naku}. But, like the Wrangler at Trinity, I'm going back to theology. There is, of course, the possibility that {joi} does not require participation, in which case, the extended forms collapse -- but so does the {pisu'o}-{piro} distinction: a possible reading, but surely not the intended one. |