[YG Conlang Archives] > [jboske group] > messages [Date Index] [Thread Index] >
de'i li 2002-11-10 ti'u li 13:19:00 la'o zoi. And Rosta .zoi cusku di'e
>Quantifiers can be divided up into 'cardinals' and 'fractionals'.
>Fractionals mean "x per y": "x-per-y broda cu brode" means that
>out of every y broda, x of them are brode. Y is always 1 or more.
>When an "x-per-y broda" claim is made about a world in which
>there are fewer than y broda, the claim is meaningless in the
>sense of uninformative, but is "deemed" to be technically true.
This is clearly not the case with how 'percent' is used in natural
languages. Suppose that there is a group of 30 students, 10 of which
are male. People go around saying things like 'cici ce'i lei tadni cu
nakni' in such situations all the time, and in a very meaningful and
informative way. (Now, perhaps they *should* say 'pa fi'u ci', but if
we're going to go that way, then there's no need for 'ce'i' at all.)
>(See below for more on what "deemed" might mean.) So "x-per-y
>broda cu brode" strictly means "Either there are at least y
>broda and x of them per y broda are brode, or there are fewer
>than y broda". In other words, fractionals are 'nonimporting'.
>(Had they been importing, they would have meant "There are at
>least y broda, and x of them per y broda are brode".) The
>rationale for this is to make DeMorgan work more elegantly.
>Cardinals (other than no) are importing. {su'o, pa, re} are
>cardinals. {so'e, ro, me'i ro} are fractionals. {no} neutralizes
>the cardinal/fractional distinction (and is by deduction
>nonimporting).
We have 4 quantifiers: {ro, no, su'o, me'i}. I consider that ro = naku
me'i and me'i = naku ro, and that su'o = naku no and no = naku su'o.
Thus, ro and me'i have opposite existential import, no matter what
import we decide for either of them. I think that these equivalences
are much more basic than DeMorgan's, and should be preserved in
whatever system we finally come up with.
mu'o mi'e .adam.