[YG Conlang Archives] > [jboske group] > messages [Date Index] [Thread Index] >
On Tue, Dec 17, 2002 at 01:44:46AM +1100, Nick Nicholas wrote:
> I'm close to compromising, but of course I will withhold final
> judgement until someone like xod or Jordan chimes in.
I'm still waiting to see more arguments, but I'm starting to think
"loi" is in fact what we want.
> I am reasonably close to accepting that l(x).broda(x) needs its own
> official gadri, and I think And's terms of reference on how the
> decision would be framed are acceptable to me. Me privately, obviously,
> not me BPFKJ. I do want to hear from other fundies.
I'm under the impression that \x: broda(x) is leka ce'u broda. If
we are willing to assume that all djica/nitcu/etc predicates can
be overloaded to take ka, then we can use that I suppose.
However, imho they should've all been designed like sisku (which
And calls "abomination" :). The reason is that if you need something
or want something or are seeking something, you are really looking
for *anything*[1] which fits a certain set of criteria. This way we
would be saying {mi djica leka klama le zarci} instead of choosing
a gadri for a nu such as le, which is obviously wrong[2].
[1] This is why I was trying to shoe-horn it into universal
quantification.
[2] Now though, I think {mi djica loinu mi klama le zarci} may in
fact be correct. I've generally used "lenu" or "lonu", even though
I think the first is obviously wrong, and the second is questionable.
[...]
> One thing, though? Arguments on the outer quantification of {lo se ka}
> are bogus, surely. It is grammatical but nonsensical to say {re loi} or
> {re lo'e}. If we agree that pragmatically, the referent of {jai ka} or
> {se ka} is always singulated, just as masses and generics are, then why
> can't we just say that {re lo se ka broda} is also nonsense? After all,
> {re lo pa broda} is nonsense. And in singulation, we have an inner
> quantifier of 1, by definition. Why can't we just accord the same
> status to {re lo se ka broda} as to {re lo pa broda}?
I don't think we should agree that. The referent of "lo seka ..."
is one of all the possible things which can be placed into the lamda
expression yielding a true statement. The very act of using "lo"
there instead of "le" suggests (imho) that the speaker either thinks
that there is more than one such thing, or that the speaker doesn't
know if there is more than one such thing.
I don't think using seka works for this (xorxes gave the reason
"loseka broda" == "lo broda"). But "loi" might.
--
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:
binEH4CTOZw6n.bin
Description: application/ygp-stripped