[YG Conlang Archives] > [jboske group] > messages [Date Index] [Thread Index] >
On Wed, 18 Dec 2002, Bob LeChevalier wrote:
> At 11:57 PM 12/17/02 +0000, Jorge Llambias wrote:
> >la djan cusku di'e
> >
> > > > I agree with that last bit. On the other hand, {mi nitcu loi mikce}
> > > > says that there is some fraction of the mass of doctors such
> > > > that I need that fraction. Not what we want.
> > >
> > >Au contraire, I think it is exactly what we want (if we can dismiss
> > >the "sundry detached doctor parts" interpretation).
> >
> >I don't think {loi mikce} can refer to detached doctor parts.
> >That has to be {loi mikce pagbu}. {loi mikce} can only be some
> >doctors collectively, but only doctors, not doctor parts.
> >
> >But {mi nitcu loi mikce} says that there is some group of doctors
> >(possibly a singleton) such that I need that group. That's not
> >the usual meaning of "I need a doctor".
In the case of doctors, I don't think it does any harm to assert the
existence of doctors! However, we want to desire unicorns as well.
Let's start at the beginning again. What is conceptually wrong with mi
nitcu le mikce? xu le mikce cu frica ko'a poi ka ce'u mikce kei be ke'a
--
// if (!terrorist)
// ignore ();
// else
collect_data ();