[YG Conlang Archives] > [jboske group] > messages [Date Index] [Thread Index] >
On Wed, Dec 18, 2002 at 02:46:10AM -0000, And Rosta wrote:
> 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...
We should put the above somewhere as an example of jboske-style
debate.
> > "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'.
Ok; It sounds like you're saying what I'm saying, but you're saying
it differently and you're concluding different usage from it. So
something is being miscommunicated here.
> > > 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.
I was reading singular as in refering to an individual. I don't
know the jargon-meaning, if there is one.
> > > > 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
I think there's two possibilities. (i) we get to choose and the
first way nicer. (ii) any bridi consisting of only "zo'e du'u
broda" is the same as "broda". I think you already said you don't
like (ii). I think (i) works fine though.
[...]
> > > > 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).
#2 has a "jei" in the description of "ni"; I don't see how this can
possibly work without it being a circular definition, if we are to
define "jei" in terms of ni.
So... maybe.
> > > (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.
"ni" usually has nothing to do with truth, imho. It can, though,
by using x2. Truth is better represented by "jei" to avoid having
to specify the x2.
--
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:
binvBjhZIVJUV.bin
Description: application/ygp-stripped