[YG Conlang Archives] > [jboske group] > messages [Date Index] [Thread Index] >
xorxes:
> la djorden cusku di'e
>
> > > O+ = su'o+na (but NOT me'iro)
> >
> >Yeah---I'm not sure what that me'iro stuff is about. Not all is
> >su'o+naku or naku+ro. Maybe xorxes can explain that
>
> "less than all" is equivalent to "not all". In principle, for
> any number "not that number" is "less than or mor than that number",
> but in the case of "all", "more than all" is contradictory, so
> all that remains is "less than all"
>
> In the same manner, we could use "za'uno" instead of "naku no" =
> "su'o". In this case "less than none" is contradictory, and so
> the negation of none is reduced to "more than none"
>
> That's why I said that a more systematic naming of the four
> quantifiers would have been:
>
> ro
> no
> za'u[no]
> me'i[ro]
>
> but {za'u} got a {za'upa} default for use as a plural marker
I don't know whether that's crediting the powers that be with
too much foresight -- I remember being told that to mark plurality
I had to say su'ore, which really pissed me off, and I only
relatively recently noticed that za'u would work as a plural
marker. But anyway, za'u (pa) is too precious to dispense with.
> Another systematic naming would be:
>
> ro
> no
> su'o[pa]
> su'e[da'apa]
>
> I think it would be a good idea if the default complement of
> {su'e} was {da'apa}, "at most (all but one)"
I agree.
> These forms I think are the ones that most clearly show the
> "natural" import of I+ and O+. At least one broda is required
> to either satisfy or not satisfy brode. When ro=no, da'apa is
> just as contradictory as pa, since you can't have less than
> (all = none) any more than you can have more than all
>
> >(Btw, does anyone know what the naku rules for
> >{rosu'o} would be?)
>
> There is no simple rule
>
> naku ro lo su'o broda cu brode
> = naku ge da broda gi ro broda cu brode
> = ganai da broda ginai ro broda cu brode
> = ganai da broda gi su'o broda naku brode
> = ganai da broda gi me'i broda cu brode
>
> Now, {ganai da broda gi ...} is simply the way of removing
> import, just as {ge da broda gi ...} is the way of adding
> import. So of course, the negation of {ro lo su'o broda cu brode},
> i.e. A+, is simply O-. {me'i broda cu brode} is O+, and
> {ganai da broda gi me'i broda cu brode} is O-
>
> >Anyway, I've not been dealing with the import of so'o, so'e, etc,
> >and I still think they are off topic
>
> My feeling is that {so'i}, {so'o} and {so'u} are definitely
> importing, while {so'a} and {so'e} should probably be non-importing
> but I'm not as sure about these last two. I seem to remember
> someone saying that the first three are independent of ro while the
> last two are relative, though I'm not sure whether this distinction
> made it to CLL
I don't see any other way of having it, unless some of them are to
get their meanings changed (for no obvious reason).
--And.