[YG Conlang Archives] > [jboske group] > messages [Date Index] [Thread Index] >
On Sun, Dec 15, 2002 at 02:27:56PM -0000, And Rosta wrote:
> Jordan:
> > On Sat, Dec 14, 2002 at 11:07:17PM -0000, And Rosta wrote:
> > > Jordan:
> > > > On Sat, Dec 14, 2002 at 11:33:58AM -0500, Invent Yourself wrote:
> > > > > On Sat, 14 Dec 2002, Jordan DeLong wrote:
> > > > > > On Sat, Dec 14, 2002 at 10:43:29AM -0500, Invent Yourself wrote:
> > > > [...]
> > > > > > This is what is confusing you: You *can't* use da to refer to
> > > > > > something specific
> > > > >
> > > > > We've had this discussion before, and it's where you said (da poi gerku
> > > > > fi'o ponse mi) isn't specific, even if I only have one dog
> > > >
> > > > Yup. It isn't. In fact it suggests to the listener that you may
> > > > own more than one dog
> > > >
> > > > It's like if I were to say "lo stedu be mi" instead of "le stedu
> > > > be mi"
> > >
> > > As you know, if I am guided by meaning rather than usage then
> > > "le stedu be mi", "each of (a) certain head(s) of mine", also
> > > implies you have more than one head, else why the need for universal
> > > quantification, and why the need for specificity -- that is, why
> > > the need to invoke a particular le'i stedu be mi, when you are
> > > in fact talking about the membership of lo'i stedu be mi?
> >
> > I disagree. o-gadri are out, regardless of the membership of lo'i
> > stedu be mi, because I am talking about a specific thing.
>
> Certainly if you intend to refer to a +specific thing, i.e. something
> involving le'i, then o-gadri are out. But one can speak of someone's
> head without referring to it.
We're talking about refering to it. One ought not to make claims
about their head without refering to it. Claims without refering
to it should be limited to claims of its existence.
> > lei makes
> > no sense, because it implies there is more than one,
>
> As you know, I think the implication that there is more than one is
> either less with lei than with le, or else equal.
I don't see why you think that.
> > and furthermore
> > that collectively it can be (conceptually) infinitely subdivided
> > le'i refers to something other than the head. le'e is obviously
> > wrong, and implies that there is more than one head.
>
> le'e is definitely not wrong, since it refers to a single head,
> or, if you prefer, *the* single head. Some but not all opinions
> on the generic gadri (but not the Prototype view) imply that the
> membership is nonsingleton, but I can't see how the implication
> would be stronger than with other gadri.
The whole point with le'e/lo'e is taking a representative, imaginary
instance of the whole set. If there's only one member of le'i
broda, then "le broda" is the representative member by definition.
Saying le'e implies that there's more than one which you need to
look around.
> > "le" is the correct gadri
>
> None of the gadri are incorrect. It is a matter of which one has
> the least unfortunate implications. I won't repeat all the arguments
> all over again, because they're in earlier messages and on the wiki.
> Personally, for {stedu be mi} I would use {loi'e}, or {lo'e} if
> that is equivalent to {loi'e}.
But you (by your own admission with those stats on the wiki) use
lo'e for basically everything. It makes no sense to me. Esp.
since we already ruled out o-gadri.
[...]
--
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:
binoFsFEtHIfD.bin
Description: application/ygp-stripped