[YG Conlang Archives] > [jboske group] > messages [Date Index] [Thread Index] >
On Sun, Dec 15, 2002 at 09:27:35PM -0000, And Rosta wrote:
> Jordan:
> > On Sun, Dec 15, 2002 at 12:20:53PM -0000, And Rosta wrote:
> > > Jordan:
[...]
> > > I don't think we really need a NU for this, but it's how I choose
> > > to interpret {me}. So {me lai xod} = "has the properties that
> > > make something xod and not any other individual", "xoddity"
> >
> > If you're speaking individuals, you should've used "la". "lai" is
> > almost useless, because if I name a mass and then refer to it, the
> > mass itself is still a single individual. "lai xod" means the mass
> > of things named xod---but there's only one..
>
> {la xod} = each member of the category I call 'xod'
> {lai xod} = the membership of the category I call 'xod'
No;
"The mass name descriptor ``lai'' is used in circumstances where we wish to talk
about a mass of things identified by a name which is common to all of them. It
is not used to identify a mass by a single name peculiar to it."
lai xod. is the mass of things (each) named xod.
> Both are correct, but {lai} is preferable because it involves no
> redundant quantification and uses a singular term to describe
> a single individual.
It's a collective term, not a singular term.
> > {me la xod} still doesn't work for what xod wants, anyway, afaict
>
> Would {ka ce'u me la xod}? I think it would.
I don't think so. He wants to replace kau with this, remember.
> > > > "ka ce'u xunre kei be mi" is precisely the same as "du'u mi xunre" because
> > > > you reduced the lambda variable. (it is (\x: xunre(x))[mi] == xunre(mi))
> > >
> > > I don't think {du'u mi xunre} is the same as {mi xunre} or
> > > {mi poi'i ke'a xunre}. So if {ka ce'u xunre mi} means {du'u mi
> > > xunre} (and I can see why you think it would), then ka with x2+
> > > won't replace poi'i
> >
> > [ I assume you meant {ka ce'u xunre kei be mi} ]
>
> I didn't. I wasn't aware that there was a semantic difference.
> I have only seen {be} used on a nonfinal tanru component before.
Well there's no x2 in xunre, so I'm not sure what you meant....
Actually I still think you meant what I assumed. At the least you
wanted the kei...
> > This is the whole point of a lambda expression... If it doesn't
> > reduce like it should, what are the additional places supposed to
> > do?
> >
> > It can still replace poi'i, because it doesn't become a du'u
> > if you don't fill all the free variables
> > le se ka xunre
> > is the same as
> > le xunre
> > and
> > mi se ka xunre
> > is equivalent to
> > mi xunre
>
> Does {mi se ka ce'u xunre kei zo'e} mean {mi xunre} or {zo'e du'u
> mi xunre}?
I think it means "mi xunre". It's the same as
mi ckaji leka xunre
or such.
It only is the same as an abstract du'u if you were using it in an
abstract. So,
leka xagji keibe mi == ledu'u mi xagji
leseka xagji == le xagji
seka xagji == xagji
ka xagji keibe mi = du'u mi xagji
[...]
> > > These matters were thoroughly thrashed out a couple of months ago,
> > > and although I don't think we agreed on a disambiguation of ni,
> > > we did agree that, roughly speaking, a jei scale can be projected
> > > from a ni scale, or that in some ways the two scales can be seen
> > > as two ways of measuring/categorizing the same thing
> >
> > What do you mean by a disambiguation? I contend that {jei} can be
> > defined in terms of {ni} using ni2, and that anyone using it to
> > indicate degree or scale of something other than truth is using it
> > incorrectly
>
> The two candidate meanings for ni are:
>
> 1. du'u se la'u ma kau
> 2. du da poi se la'u ke'a = jai se la'u
> or: jai se la'u jei
leni broda kei ko'a == le se klani befi ko'a beife lesu'u broda
le jei broda == le ni broda kei be lesi'o jetnu == le se klani
be fi lesi'o jetnu beife lesu'u broda
Where su'u may or may not be ka, depending on the definition of
klani.
> (or xorxes's more elegant formulations thereof, which I can't remember).
>
> I think xod and I are of the opinion that ni1 and xukau and ni2 and
> jei categorize the same scale -- the degree to which something is
> the case -- but that ni1/ni2 and xukau/jei categorize it in different
> ways. The idea is that two states of affairs can be the case to
> different degrees yet both be true or both be false, so they have
> different ni values but the same jei/xukau values. My apologies to
> xod if I misrepresent him here.
In many cases ni has nothing to do with the extent to which something
is the case (unless i'm misreading what you mean by that---to me
that means "how true" it is).
--
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:
bino8isThXjmQ.bin
Description: application/ygp-stripped