[YG Conlang Archives] > [jboske group] > messages [Date Index] [Thread Index] >
Jordan: > On Mon, Nov 25, 2002 at 08:33:25PM -0000, And Rosta wrote: > > Jordan: > > > On Fri, Nov 22, 2002 at 12:13:26PM -0000, And Rosta wrote: > > > > xorxes: > > > [...] > > > > > >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} > > > > > > Eh? I think it *is* kakne. I see {su'omu'ei} as a reasonable > > > explaination of what kakne means (there's probably a different (more > > > restricted) accessability relation going on than for cumki though) > > > Or actually su'oba'oi would be better, no? > > > > I had supposed that "i kakne play the trombone" is false but > > "cumki I play the trombone" is true, under average assumptions > > I don't see a difference between cumki and su'o mu'ei/ba'oi. > > So either cumki is equivalent to kakne or else either ka'e is > > not equivalent to kakne or ka'e is not equivalent to su'o mu'ei > > Well, that's my point though---if ka'e/kakne (which I think must > be the same) mean su'omu'ei, they mean it with a different accessabilty > relation than the su'omu'ei that cumki or lakne means. I think > this makes sense, and is probably more accurate than a view using > the same world relation but requiring truth in more accessible > worlds Okay, but if ka'e = kakne, then we need to establish how to talk about imaginaries as imaginaries. su'o mu'ei su'o mu'ei je ca'a su'o mu'ei je nai ca'a would do the trick, but they are extremely cumbersome. We don't often need to talk about imaginary dogs or even detectives, but we do often need to talk about imaginary events. And it has been said by Reputable Sources (JWC) that CAhA does this; yet that does not square with the actual definition of ka'e or its apparent relationship with kakne. > WRT mu'ei (and somewhat off topic), I just realized (while trying > to think of a way it could be done as a NU) that all that ledu'u > .... kei goo (or for whatever reason some prefer lo'edu'u, though I > maintain that a statement is itself and trying to think of a typical > version of a set of (itself) is weird, and seems to imply the set > isn't singular) can be avoided by using a forethought stag: > ro mu'ei gi do gerku gi mi citkygau do > Which is kinda nice Can you give a couple more examples? I don't quite get what you mean & can't work it out for myself because I haven't properly learnt the construction. Regarding {lo'e du'u}, the Jboske consensus was that {lo'e} is only tangentially -- or rather epiphenomenally -- concerned with typicality, and that actually {lo'e broda} means "In a world like this one but with only one broda, the one broda is...". In the light of that, {lo'e du'u} makes perfect sense. (Statements explicitly about typicality can be made using {fadni}, {so'e roi} and other such devices.) Xorxes and I had a very interesting exchange about the most appropriate default gadri to use when the category is singleton. I favour {lo'e}; he approves that on semantic grounds, but prefers {le} on phonological grounds. --And.