[YG Conlang Archives] > [jboske group] > messages [Date Index] [Thread Index] >
Jordan:
> > > > > 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.
> >
> > As you know, we don't agree on this. I don't agree that the instance
> > need be representative or imaginary. It can be real, but it must be
> > the only member. If under the operative worldview it cannot be true
> > that there is only one real member, then the one member must be
> > imaginary. Even then, it needn't be representative if there is a
> > sensical way to reduce a manymembered set to a single nonrepresentative
> > member, though it may in fact be the case that representativeness is
> > inherent in the process of singularization
>
> *shrug* I think it needs to be representative. If it isn't, the
> gadri is far too open in terms of meaning (you probably want a
> tanru---mi tanxe nitcu, instead of this mi nitcu lo'e tanxe stuff)
What is "far too open"? The loi'e singularizer is crisply defined,
so presumably the objection must be that it covers too much ground;
that too much is describable by loi'e broda. If so, the decision
being debated is not about what lo'e means but about which gadri
definition gets assigned the shape /lo'e/.
On the nitcu example, although I now agree with xorxes that loi'e
works for nitcu, the canonical examples were {mi nelci loi'e
cakla} and {ti pixra loi'e since}. Certainly a tanru is not a
solution to anything, within the formalist enterprise that jboske
takes for granted.
> > > 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
> >
> > I take "lo'e broda" to mean "the one and only broda", with the
> > "one and only" bit presupposed rather than asserted. In the light
> > of that, it will be obvious why it gets used so often
>
> I understand that.
Good.
> What I don't understand is *why* you take it to mean that
Because (a) it is a useful and desirable meaning, because (i) I
believe is the best analysis of many English generics (as well as
of English mass nouns and proper nouns), and (ii) it encodes a
different but coherent worldview (so is whorfianly valuable),
(b) it is consistent with the little that is agreed on for lo'e
(viz, that it is some kind of generic gadri), and (c) once I
had defined the meaning and ascribed it to loi'e/lei'e, the
participants in the debate at the time spoke up and said it
worked for them as a story about lo'e.
Now, I still maintain (a) and (b), but the former consensus that
(c) involves is broken. Therefore I can see the following ways
of proceeding.
I. The BF decides to add sets of cmavo for two (or more, if
necessary) sets of generic gadri, one with the meaning
of loi'e/lei'e, and one or more with the meanings that will
satisfy the people who aren't satisfied with loi'e/lei'e.
By voting, tossing a coin, or whatever, the BF decides which
meanings get the shapes lo'e/le'e. Whatever the result, I am
happy with it.
II. The BF decides to add no new cmavo forms and decides by
voting or some other means which candidate meaning gets
assigned to lo'e/le'e. If it's the meaning of loi'e/lei'e
then I am happy with it. If it's not, then I'll be unhappy
with it, seeing it as a bad decision fairly and equitably
arrived at.
--And.