[YG Conlang Archives] > [jboske group] > messages [Date Index] [Thread Index] >
On Sat, 14 Dec 2002, Jordan DeLong wrote:
> On Sat, Dec 14, 2002 at 03:46:54PM -0500, Invent Yourself wrote:
> [...]
> > A few hours ago, Jorge wrote
> >
> > i na vajni fa le du'u makau catra la lauras
> > It doesn't matter who killed Laura.
> >
> >
> > Had we an identity abstractor Q, with lambda ce'u, then we could have said
> > {na vajni fa le Q ce'u catra ly.} We weren't given one, which is why I use
> > {su'u ce'u broda keibe lo kamse'i}.
>
> That would mean "The person who killed laura is not important". It
> would not mean "It is not important who killed laura".
su'u...kamse'i is not supposed to return the person, but the identity of
the person. If it returns the person, it's useless! My self-ness is my
uniqueness, but it's not me. I have hair, my self-ness doesn't.
> Identity abstract is nice (and we apparently have 3 proposed ways
> to do it: seka, poi'i, jaika), but it's not what you mean.
>
> [...]
> > So jaika is like the seka, which is actually pretty useless, since it does
> > not provide identity (at best it, like every selbri, allows us to
> > narrow-down the range of possibly sumti) and usually is used by people
> > desiring jei. (I can expound on that last point if needed.)
>
> I don't understand that at all. What does se/te/ve ka have to do
> with jei?
My redness gets rendered as ka mi xunre (lacking a ce'u: no good) or ka
ce'u xunre kei be mi (redness, and stick mi in the ce'u). It should be
rendered either as jei mi xunre (the amount of my redness) or li'i mi
xunre (experience of my redness)
--
jipno se kerlo
re mei re mei degji kakne