[YG Conlang Archives] > [jboske group] > messages [Date Index] [Thread Index] >
la pycyn cusku di'e <<
> 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. >>Suppose our three men are a, b and c. Then {pisu'o lei ci nanmu cu bevri lepipno} 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]}
I don't agree it amounts to that. It amounts to G only.
For me {lei ci nanmu} is just {abu joi by joi cy}. The mass
does not inherit the properties of each submass.
(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 forindividuals). If we move on to {pira'eci lei ci nanmu cu bevri le pipno} canonly mean {A ija B ija C}.
I think that would correspond to {su'o pira'eci lei nanmu ...}.
You'd need XOR instead if ija, however it is that we do three way
XOR in Lojban. I'm assuming that fractional quantifiers are exact
too, so that one third is just one third and not at least one third.
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}
Again, I think it would require 3-way XOR.
but it may also add {ija ge A gi B ija ge A gi C ija ge A gi C}.
I disagree about this part.
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 fromthe store to my place), the second for activities (carried the piano around).
The second might be true, depending on context, but the first must be true.
The same is true for {piro lei ci nanmu cu bevri le pipno} = {G [ija ge D giE ija ge E gi F ija ge D gi F ija gege A gi B gi C]
G has to be true, it is another way of saying the same thing. The rest may or may not be true depending on context. (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.
Yes, that's how I understand them.
Of course, even this implies {pisu'o lei ci nanmu
naku bevri le pipno}.
No, I don't think it does. Saying something about the whole mass does not entail anything about any proper part. Some properties are shared by parts, others are not. For me, a piro-mass is a simple singular term. Very easy to work with and useful. 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