[YG Conlang Archives] > [jboske group] > messages [Date Index] [Thread Index] >
On Wed, Dec 18, 2002 at 01:38:27PM -0500, Invent Yourself wrote:
> On Wed, 18 Dec 2002, John Cowan wrote:
> > Invent Yourself scripsit:
> > > 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
> >
> > Because le is +specific, so if I am lying semi-conscious on the street
> > moaning "mi nitcu le mikce", I have to wake you up to ask which doctor
> > you mean.
>
> OK. So the idea behind "mi nitcu ko'a poi ka ce'u mikce kei be ke'a"[1] is
> simply to remove the specificity and say that I could use ANY doctor out
> there.
No one is suggesting the above. They are suggesting "mi nitcu leka
ce'u mikce". If you reduce the lambda, and since there's only one
of any du'u, you're saying "mi nitcu ledu'u mikce".
> And why again can't I say mi nitcu lo mikce?
Because this does not claim you need any doctor and that any doctor
will do. It says "there is some doctor out there that I need".
> [1] I use the wacky formulation because I don't need doctorhood -- that
> would I'm asking for acceptance to med school -- I need a thing that
> exhibits the doctor quality.
Maybe you had meant something more like "mi nitcu leka ckaji leka
mikce" then? Anyway I think either work; it's a grokked-thing
whether or not you want to *become* a doctor, or if you just need
anything for which \x: doctor(x) is true.
Actually I take that back. If you need to become a doctor, you
should say
mi nitcu co binxo leka mikce
--
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:
binNl778QrRSG.bin
Description: application/ygp-stripped