[YG Conlang Archives] > [jboske group] > messages [Date Index] [Thread Index] >
Jordan:
> 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;
Yes...
> "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
That's right. It doesn't mean that each one happens coincidentally to
have the same name. Cmene work exactly like brivla: /prenu/ and
/xod/ both 'name' (label, whatever) categories, so each member of
lo'i prenu has the property named 'prenu' and each member of la'i
xod has the property 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
A collective term is a singular term.
> > > > > "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..
Sorry. I noticed your use of {be} and didn't notice my inadvertent
omission of {kei}. I meant {ka ce'u xunre kei mi}.
> > > 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
OK. But I am not sure why
da poi ke'a se ka xagji
means
da poi ke'a xagji
and not
da poi zo'e du'u ke'a 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
So basically you go for some version of (2).
> > (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)
Yes. I and I think xod think ni = how true. A larger quantity
makes for truer and a smaller for less true.
--And.