[YG Conlang Archives] > [jboske group] > messages [Date Index] [Thread Index] >
On Thu, Dec 05, 2002 at 10:58:05PM +0200, Adam Raizen wrote:
> 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
>
> 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.
But look at the example; the tu'o is just like zo'e, with 0 being
the value that is implied. Thus, the rest of your stuff doesn't
follow.
tu'o broda has to be the same as <something> lo broda, anyway.
--
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:
binAQT8O2GxJd.bin
Description: application/ygp-stripped