[YG Conlang Archives] > [jboske group] > messages [Date Index] [Thread Index] >


[Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next]

RE: [jboske] unresolved debates



xorxes:
> la and cusku di'e
> 
> >1a. meaning of so'V
> 
> {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 
> 
> I'm not so sure about {so'i}, {so'o} and {so'u}. They all
> seem to imply {su'ore}. (I can see "one" being too many or
> too few, but I can't see it being many, several or a few.)
> 
> I vascillate here, but I would also say that they have to
> be less than ro. If many broda are brode, then some broda
> are not brode. So they are like so'a and so'e in that they
> all entail za'uno and me'iro 

The me'iro is merely implicature, IMO, for several/many/a few.
 
> On the other hand, the relative magnitude is independent
> of ro. They correspond to a small, a medium and a large
> number, but what is small, medium or large depends on the
> context and not on the total number. So I can say {so'i
> gerku cu nenri le kumfa}, "many dogs are in the room", where
> "many" is a large number as far as dogs being in rooms is
> concerned, but not as far as the total number of dogs
> there are 
> 
> Maybe 

So basically they mean pretty much the same as their English
glosses. As opposed to collectively forming some sort of
5-point scale.

> >1b. ways of expressing fractional quantifiers
> 
> Again {piso'a} and {piso'e} don't seem to present problems 
> Again I would say that {piso'i}, {piso'o} and {piso'u} refer
> to a large/medium/small amount not necessarily in terms
> of the whole, but rather large/medium/small in context 

How would we express large/small amount relative to the size
of the whole?

How do we say "half of all men", "one in every two men"? (And 
how about "half a man" and "all halves of men"?) 
 
> >2a. meaning of {lo'e}, {le'e}
> 
> We all seemed ok with "myopic singularizer", though we differed
> on our capacities to abstract and singularize... :)

Okay.
 
> >2b. meaning of {ta'e}, {na'o}
> 
> One of them must refer to density of occurrence in a given
> interval. I don't know which one, nor what would the other be 

So we will have to revisit this issue.

Are you saying that one would mean "most times within a given
interval", = so'e roi?

I was saying that I took "ta'e" to mean "on multiple occasions"
as opposed to "za'u roi" = "multiple times".

> 
> >2c. methods of making statements about typicality
> 
> Use of {fadni} is the best way to go here 

I agree, but how do we say things like "In general, the tv news
starts at 2200", "In general, divorce is traumatic"?

> >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 = ?

So we are in agreement that "is innately capable" is a mis-gloss
of {ka'e}? You, me, Adam and, I see, Jordan seem to be. I.e. it
means {cumki} more than {kakne}.

I too can't see a meaning for pu'i as usefully distinct from ca'a. 

> >4. meaning, if any, of ni+ce'u
> 
> My preferrence is {ni} = {ka/du'u sela'u makau}, so ni+ce'u is
> well defined. I don't see {ni} as a number as very useful, but
> I won't argue too strongly for this 

I prefer ni as analogous to jei, on aesthetic grounds. I.e.
ni = poi'i sela'u ke'a. But I don't feel too strongly about it.

All the same, I don't see why ni+ce'u means on either reading.
Can you explain?
 
> >5. ways of signalling when numbers are and aren't restricted to integers 
> 
> I'm not sure in what contexts this would be necessary. There
> is always the possibility of stating explicitly "this number
> is an integer" using whatever predicate we have for "integer" 
> What would be an example where the signalling is needed but
> being explicit would be too cumbersome?

That was from the "djedi li integer" thread. We want to distinguish
between "last more than 24 hours" and "last one or more days", for
example. "She will stay with me for at least a week" vs. "She will
stay with me for one or more weeks".

You had suggested something like "su'o pi" vs "su'o pi nai", though
that is based on a grammar change that allows nai anywhere.

--And.