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


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

tu'o (was: lo'edu'u)



de'i li 2002-12-05 ti'u li 10:39:00 la'o zoi. Jordan DeLong .zoi cusku di'e

>However, "tu'o nu" is semantically the same as "<zo'e> lo nu", and
>using it as a different article is just broken.

The ma'oste says that tu'o is "a non-specific/elliptical number";
however, from CLL's description, I think that it is clear that tu'o is
more akin to zi'o than to zo'e. CLL explains tu'o on page 450
(18.14.1):

CLL> 14.1)	li tu'o va'a ny. du
CLL> 		li no vu'u ny.
CLL> 	the-number (null) additive-inverse n equals
CLL> 		the-number zero minus n
CLL> 	-n = 0 - n
CLL> 	
CLL> The ``tu'o'' fulfills the grammatical requirement for a left
CLL> operand for the infix use of ``va'a'', even though semantically
CLL> none is needed or wanted.

va'a is only a unary operator, and makes no sense as a binary operator,
so it's pointless to say here that tu'o represents a non-specific or
elliptical number. tu'o is used just in those places where a number is
grammatically required, but none is wanted semantically. The motivation
for using "tu'o du'u" is not just that lo'i du'u is a singleton, but
that it's inherently a singleton, and can be nothing else, so it seems
a bit pernicious to quantify over it. While "tu'o du'u" is better, I
use "le du'u" outside of jboske debates, since it's traditional and
it's not inaccurate.

tu'o as a quantifier for non-singleton sets (as in "tu'o nu" or "tu'o
cinfo", etc.) is therefore clearly not anything like "<zo'e> lo nu"
(where <zo'e> is something like "vei mo'e zo'e"). <zo'e> would mean
that there is some number which quantifies over the set, but if we go
by analogy with the CLL's explanation, then I think we would say that
there isn't any actual number there, tu'o is just filling the space
because grammatically some number is required, though none is wanted,
and that is very useful for extracting the intension from the set,
instead of quantifying over the extension, as xorxes has pointed out
with his use and explanation of lo'e.

Conclusion: the ma'oste should be fixed.

mu'o mi'e .adam.