[YG Conlang Archives] > [jboske group] > messages [Date Index] [Thread Index] >
I think that this is universally accepted for uses without a specified
inner quantifier (which is 99.9% of the usage of lo). However I
the following is the more general way to put it, which keeps the
inner quantifier information intact:
PA1 lo PA2 broda == PA1 da poi ke'a cmima lo'i PA2 broda
On this subject, we were discussing on irc a while back over whether
PA1 le gerku ==? PA1 da voi ke'a gerku
or
PA1 le PA2 gerku ==? PA1 da poi ke'a cmima le'i PA2 gerku
make sense, and such things.
I wonder if anyone can answer to my problems with each of these:
In my view, it's easy to show that the first one is broken if you
use the default quantifier for le:
ro da voi ke'a gerku
certainly does not seem (to me) to imply that we're talking about
a (probably small) set of things which may or may not be dogs, and
I think it also loses the implication that the speaker knows exactly
which things (which are being called dogs) she's talking about.
The second one fixes the problem of the inner quantifier, and of
implying knowing which things are in the set being talked about (by
using le'i). However, if we use a nondefault quantifier on le, I
think it is implied that the speaker knows which members of le'i
gerku are being discussed:
re le gerku cu xagji .ijeku'i pa le gerku puzi citka lo mlatu
talks about a specific pair of gerku, not just {re da poi cmima
le'i gerku} (some pair of dogs from the set).
Anyone have answers for these?
--
Jordan DeLong - fracture@hidden.email
lu zo'o loi censa bakni cu terzba le zaltapla poi xagrai li'u
sei la mark. tuen. cusku
Attachment:
binOBSl1I6DTH.bin
Description: application/ygp-stripped