[YG Conlang Archives] > [jboske group] > messages [Date Index] [Thread Index] >
xorxes:
> la and cusku di'e
>
> > > [As a matter of fact, I'm ok with the pisu'o default for
> > > {loi}, but I don't think {loi broda} is a singular term
> > > And prefers a piro default
> >
> >It depends. If I drink pi ro loi djacu, does that mean I drink all
> >the water there is? Or if I have a sip, am I still drinking pi ro
> >loi djacu?
>
> That depends on the meaning of {pinxe}. If after {lo nu ko'a
> mu'o pinxe ko'e}, ko'e is completey or mostly inside ko'a, then
> having a sip of water won't be {pinxe piro loi djacu}. If
> {pinxe} is like {pencu} such that touching a spot is touching
> the whole, then having a sip is drinking it
>
> >If the latter, then I do prefer a pi ro default. If
> >the former, then I prefer no default
>
> I don't see why that would determine your choice of default
> for {loi}. We can have two predicates "x1 drinks x2" and
> "x1 drinks of x2" such that one behaves the way you want
> with (piro loi djacu} and the other doesn't
>
> {piro loi broda cu nenri ko'a} for example requires that
> the whole mass be inside of ko'a
You're right. Forget the stuff about pi ro. I just want the
default to be no quantification.
> >If I touch Nick, that does
> >not mean I touch every bit of Nick, but I don't think we can
> >conclude from that that reference to Nick has a default implicit
> >pi su'o. +
>
> Of course, that's how "touch" works. But if you eat Nick,
> then usually it would mean every bit, because that's how
> "eat" works. I would assume "citka" means "x1 eats x2 fully"
> and not "x1 eats of x2", but both are possible predicates
> to have in the language
>
> Similarly, {pencu} explicitly means "x1 touches x2 at locus x3"
> Another predicate could be "x1 touches x2 all over", in which
> case you'd have to touch every bit for it to hold
Yes. You're right. So long as loi broda is like Nick [so loi
broda must be intense, bearded, demoniacal?], I'm cool. (Don't
laugh at me if I get my transatlantic colloquialisms wrong.)
> >So my view is that masses are singulars and so their
> >default should be that there is no quantification
>
> I think that makes {loi} not very useful, as we rarely want to
> refer to whole nonspecific masses
You yourself have just said that certain predicates like "touch"
apply to wholes if they apply to parts. These predicates aren't
few.
I'd probably use {mi citka lau'o plise} rather than {mi citka
loi plise}, if citka means "eat up" rather than "eat of".
> >I know this is anti-CLL, but where CLL gets it wrong we're put
> >in the tricky situation of having to choose between ignoring the
> >wrong bits of CLL or creating experimental cmavo that, in this
> >instance, would be exactly like loi/lei but without the defaults
>
> My position is anti-CLL too when it comes to {lei}. It is just
> by chance that I agree with CLL on {loi}'s default
>
> >OTOH, on my view of masses as unquantified singulars, the difference
> >between loi and loi'e would be:
> >* loi mikce is more like "I need doctors", in that it doesn't say that
> >the needee has the properties of a single doctor
> >* nitcu loi mikce is weird or vacuous if there are no mikce, but nitcu
> >loi'e mikce remains sensical if there are no mikce
>
> I agree with the second one, but needing the whole mass of doctors
> to me is a much stronger need than needing doctors. They are all
> needed in collaboration. You need the whole community of doctors
nitcu loi mikce = need the group of all doctors
nitcu lei mikce = need a certain group of doctors
I don't have stronger intuitions about the meaning of the Lojban
than I have about the English translations.
--And.