[YG Conlang Archives] > [jboske group] > messages [Date Index] [Thread Index] >
la pycyn cusku di'e <<
> But it is still the case that {abu joi by joi cy cu bevri le pipno}. > Saying {lei ci nanmu cu bevri le pipno} does not add anything else >> No, it is not {abu joi by joi cy bevri le pipno}, since at no time are all three in it together, though each of them is in it sometimes
I don't understand the distinction you make between {abu joi by joi cy} and {piro lei ci nanmu}. In both cases we are referring to the three individuals as a mass. I don't see why in the first case the three are more together than in the second case.
It is not G but {ge D gi E ije ge E gi Fije ge D ge F} .
That simplifies to just {ge D gige E gi F}.
I suspect this is just a different way of understanding the additive properties of masses. In the first (carry three blocks) though at no time were all three involved, what each pairachieved was only part of the whole property in question. In the second case(carried) still all three are not involved at any one time yet each pair achieves the whole of the property in question. My point is that this is still {piro lei ci nanmu cu bevri} but not {abu joi by joi cy bevri}.
I agree it is the former, but why not the latter? They both refer to the same thing. Just like using {ro le ci nanmu} would be equivalent to {abu e by e cy}. To describe the carrying by pairs case more specifically we could say {ro lu'o re le ci nanmu cu bevri le pipno} = "each mass of two of the three men carried the piano". This is compatible with the {piro lei ci nanmu} claim, but neither logically entails the other. It is also equivalent to saying {ge abu joi by gige abu joi cy gi by joi cy}, each of the three pairs.
That is, G is sufficient but not necessary for {piro lei ci nanmu...}
To me, G is the same thing as the sentence with {piro lei ...}.
<< I think {lei ci nanmu} is not more than {abu joi by joi cy}. A claim about {[piro] lei ci nanmu} cannot be broken down logically in terms of submasses like {abu joi by}. For some particular predicates we might infer something about the submasses, but not due to some general logical rule. >>You have the problem backwards here -- and also wrongly answered. The firstpoint is that several things other than G entail {lei ....} and, consequently, {lei ...} does not entail G flat out.
We disagree about that. That an object weighs 2kg, for example, does not mean that any mass containing the object weighs 2kg.
In a particular case it may, but it need not. And similarly for the other cases of partial masses. In any case, the main point is that masses are not individuals but round about ways of talking about individuals. As such they cannot directly instantiate universal or generalize to particulars.
Are you saying that {loi broda cu brode} does not entail {da brode}? I think I disagree.
The fact that a mass ofindividuals moved a piano does not mean that there is something, in the {da}sense, that moves a piano.
So we could claim {lei nanmu cu bevri le pipno i ku'i noda bevri le pipno}. It sounds extremely odd. I have always assumed that masses are valid instances of da.
<< {su'o pira'eci} means "at least one third". I've no idea what {ro pira'eci} might mean, that one is odd indeed. A ija B ija C won't be {su'o pira'eci} either, actually. >> I suppose I would have said {pisu'ora'eci} if I had wanted to say that.
That's an odd form. {pisu'o} by itself has a special meaning with a special use of {pi}, it does not mean "at least .1". But {su'o [no]pira'eci} uses standard ordinary {pi}. I would tend to read {pisu'oci loi broda} as a mass of at least three broda. mu'o mi'e xorxes _________________________________________________________________Tired of spam? Get advanced junk mail protection with MSN 8. http://join.msn.com/?page=features/junkmail