[YG Conlang Archives] > [jboske group] > messages [Date Index] [Thread Index] >
On Thu, Nov 28, 2002 at 02:30:47AM -0000, And Rosta wrote:
> For Jordan I'm forwarding this. I've added some comments (prefixed
> by %%) to indicate what I recall was the upshot.
Thanks, this is helpful. Some questions/comments below.
[...]
> Class A: {lo} within the scope of an implicit element.
> * "I tame the lion" = "I am trained for a situation where there is a
> lion that I tame", or, more precisely, "co'e tu'o du'u there is
> a lion that I tame".
> * "I need a box" = "I need for it to be the case that there is a
> box such that it co'e"
[...]
> Class B. The ones that don't fall under Class A. My feeling is that
> what is going on with these is that we are referring to the type
> rather than the tokens. Not the set, but the exemplar. It is as
> if we abstract away from the differences among the tokens to end
> up with a single instance.
> * "I like chocolate" -- "I like the chocolate exemplar", "If you
> abstract away from all different instances of chocolate, what you
> end up with is liked by me"
> * "This depicts a snake" -- "This depicts the snake exemplar",
> "If you abstract away from all different instances of snakes,
> what you end up with is depicted by this."
I think the above senses are all different from the way lo'e is
cast by the book. Under my understanding, a statement like
ti pixra lo'e since
means that if you select any member lo'i since, it is more likely
that "ti pixra <that snake>" is true than that it is false. Same
thing with {mi nelci lo'e cakla}, which suggests I have familiarity
with far more quantities of cakla[1] than I possibly could.
Where do you put statements like
lo'e gerku cu mleca lo'e plini leka barda
To me, this doesn't seem to be the same as either of your classes
of statements, and also seems to be the only type of lo'e which is
explicit in the book. The way I view this statement is to say that
if you select any dog and any planet, chances are that the planet
will be bigger than the dog. If you can explain this in terms of
one of the above (and please dumb it down plenty), then maybe I'll
be able to understand where this stuff is coming from.
[1] On a totally unrelated topic, I just realized that a lot of the
brivla which I've been using generally with mass articles (djacu,
cakla, canre, etc---mass nouns) are defined with "x1 is a quantity
of...", which seems to make it already a mass? Does this mean that
lei cakla refers to a mass of masses of cakla, in the same way that
le'i selcmi is a set of sets? This would certainly seem to make
sense, as I dunno what le calka/etc means otherwise...
--
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:
bin3wjGGlMpf6.bin
Description: application/ygp-stripped