[YG Conlang Archives] > [jboske group] > messages [Date Index] [Thread Index] >
On Thu, Nov 21, 2002 at 06:37:09PM +0000, Jorge Llambias wrote:
> la djorden cusku di'e
> >On Thu, Nov 21, 2002 at 12:54:23PM +0000, Jorge Llambias wrote:
> > > la djorden cusku di'e
> > > > > {so'a} and {so'e} are clearly relative to {ro}, unless
> > > > > the keywords ("almost all", "most") are totally meaningless.
> > > > > It seems to me that they are necessarily less than ro, and
> > > > > also at least ro/2.
> > > >
> > > >As was being discussed on the wiki, this sort of way of looking at
> > > >things has issues for infinite sets. ro/2 can be ro in those cases.
> > >
> > > But then "almost all" and "most" will also be infinite.
> >
> >Right, but they shouldn't be the same as "all" (or at least, in
> >english they aren't.
>
> In the same sense, ro/2 should not be the same as "all" either.
I think it should (if in an inner quantifier context where ro is
simply = to the cardinality). li ci'i pa fi'u re du li ci'i pa
[...]
> > > I suspect you meant to say something else there. so'a/so'e
> > > should evaluate true for an infinite number of cases when ro
> > > is infinite, so it can't be true for only a finite number of
> > > cases.
> >
> >Right; and they also evaluate false for an infinite number of cases.
>
> Not necessarily. For example, we could say "almost all positive
> integers are greater than 10", which will evaluate to false for
> only a finite number of integers.
[ce'i]
> I don't think anyone has any doubts about what {panoce'i} means
> when the total number is finite, except perhaps that we don't know
> whether it is to be taken as individuals or as a mass.
I would hope individuals. If I want 10% of a mass, I'd say
pipano+lei/lai/loi instead of using ce'i.
This just gave a possible idea for defining ce'i in terms of
the underlying set (regardless of whether it is infinite):
PA+ ce'i le broda = ro lu'a pi PA+ le'i broda
PA+ ce'i [lo] broda = ro lu'a pi PA+ lo'i broda
Then it just relies on what {pi PA+ le'i/lo'i broda} means (and i'm
not sure what it means for infinite sets, though I think for finite
sets it's pretty clear).
{PA+ ce'i da poi ...} would then be {ro lu'a pi PA+ lo'i du ro da
poi ...} (which could be used instead of the above two as le and
lo both can come down to da poi ... clauses).
[...]
> In the case of infinite sets, different orderings will give
> different results. For example, if you order the integers like
> this: 1, 10, 2, 20, 3, 30, 4, 40, 5, 50, 6, 60, 7, 70, 8, 80,
> 9, 90, 11, 110, 12, 120, ... you may be tempted to say that 50%
> of the integers are multiples of 10. It will work using your
> method. In fact any statement about fractions of infinity are
> meaningless if taken strictly, but they have some non-explicit
> meaning in the sense you propose plus some assumptions of
> "standard ordering".
>
So what I was trying to do here is find a way of looking at
so'a/so'e/ce'i which is the same for sets of finite size and for
sets of infinite size. Your points about positive integers greater
than 10 and about being able to order things in ways which basically
allows any claim makes the way I was suggesting things not really
work I think. Another approach is to just simply treat things
differently for infinite sets, which maybe isn't so bad (natural
language seems to do it).
> > > > > >3. CAhA, da'i, mu'ei etc.
> > > > >
> > > > > ka'e = su'omu'ei
> > > > > ca'a = <this>mu'ei
> > > > > nu'o = ka'e jenai ca'a
> > > > > pu'i = ?
> > > >
> > > >not {ka'e je ca'a}?
> > >
> > > With the above definition, that reduces to {ca'a}.
> >
> >Actually with the way you give ka'e and ca'a, anything which ca'a
> >must also ka'e.
>
> Yes, undoubtedly.
>
> >So I don't see the problem. pu'i would just be
> >another way to say it (but you could've just said ca'a).
>
> I don't see a problem either, we'd just have two cmavo with
> identical meaning. I never use {pu'i} as it is anyway.
Yeah; I think pu'i and nu'o are actually related to pu though, so
they probably have a different meaning.
> >I think the concept of "demonstrating" potential ("can and has")
> >really is about what has happened in the past.
> >
> >These are probably a bit better though:
> > nu'o = pu ca'a naje ka'e
> > pu'i = pu ca'a je ka'e
>
> That's how I've always interpreted it, but there has
> been a certain reluctance to accept this officially.
> Do you see any difference between {pu ca'a je ka'e}
> and plain {pu ca'a}?
What's the official reluctance based on? It seems from the gloss
and examples in the book that they actually mean something along
those lines.... "can and has" is certainly time-based in english
at least.
I think {puca'a je ka'e} is different from {pu ca'a} because the
latter is true under conditions where {ca ka'e najenai ba ka'e je
pu ca'a} and the former is not.
romu'ei ledu'u lei tuple po'e mi cu spofu binxo kei mi pu ca'a cadzu
is true, but
romu'ei ledu'u lei tuple po'e mi cu spofu binxo kei mi pu'i cadzu
isn't.
(assuming that the implied PU part of the rhs of the tense is
something which ends up in the ca or ba, which I think it should
be).
--
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:
binUBtGzyxiPR.bin
Description: application/ygp-stripped