[YG Conlang Archives] > [jboske group] > messages [Date Index] [Thread Index] >
la lojbab cusku di'e
It depends. If you aren't talking about nu blosazri, then that may not be a relevant property of lei -sailor.
No, I'm talking of {loi blosazri}.
If you are, then you are correct that you better not be talking about sailor goo.
The sentence in question was something like:
loi blosazri cu ve'a cpana le barloi
"There's sailor all over the deck."
My understanding is that that can't refer to sailor goo,
because sailor goo doesn't operate boats and so {blosazri}
probably doesn't cover it.
If you are talking about wetness, then you'd better not be talking about individual molecules of water, because wetness requires a certain density of water to emerge as property.
Of course.
Waves require even greater density, and liquidity; ice crystals don't display that emergent property (nor for that matter, wetness).
Yes, we agree about that.
> >If you boil rice to a pulp and spread rice goo all over the> >floor (or grind it down to rice flour) then you risk the same problem with> >substance-rice that you do with substance-sailor. > >Correct. If it ceases to be rice, we shouldn't call it {rismi} >anymore. But rice pulp and rice flour still are rismi, and could be lei rismi if the properties that you care about still are present.
Ok, if they are still rice then they are rismi. No problem.
I am not sure that pa nanmu necessarily has to be a single male human.
How about {pa naurka'u}? Or are you saying that any {pa broda}
must be divisible into {so'i broda}?
Most languages don't have a way to massive male humans so that "one" could refer to a mass,
I wouldn't know.
though we do have the closely related person/people complex in English where a people is made of multiple persons and can be subdivided into smaller "a people". Why do you want to deny the possibility of pa nanmu referring to a maneople, which could composed of many men.
I don't want to deny the possibility, but if that is the range
allowed by {nanmu} then the gi'uste is not clear about it. Pick
another example, like {naurka'u}.
> >John (and I) are arguing, I think, that this subdivision of brodas is a SW> >restriction that is not necessary. > >Is the divison of brodas into "animals" and "non-animals" also >a SW restriction? What division is that? There are brodas that we can claim are danlu and some we can claim are na'e danlu, and then there are the bacteria that may or may not be danlu depending on the vintage of your classification system.
Correct. The same thing happens with broda that are "substances".
The closest you can say is that we can divide gismu up into those which are defined using the plant/animal place structure paradigm and those that are not.
Same thing for "substances".
>It is the same type of subdivision, purely >dependent on the meanings of the predicates and no doubt with >boundary non-clearcut cases. But why can't I imagine a world where le sfofa cu danlu?
You can, who said you couldn't?
>We agree then. We don't want a special gadri for flowing broda, >and we don't need a special gadri for substance broda. If we want >to talk about flowing watches or watch substance we use selbri, >not gadri. Only if the same is true of water and rice.
If what is true? There is no gadri for animals, but some broda describe animals. There is no gadri for divisible substances, but some broda describe divisible substances.
Any operation that is valid on one selbri is valid on all of them. Whether it makes semantic sense in any plausible context is irrelevant to whether it is valid.
You can certainly use {lei} with any broda, if that's what you
mean.
mu'o mi'e xorxes
_________________________________________________________________
STOP MORE SPAM with the new MSN 8 and get 3 months FREE*.
http://join.msn.com/?page=features/junkmail&xAPID=42&PS=47575&PI=7324&DI=7474&SU=
http://www.hotmail.msn.com/cgi-bin/getmsg&HL=1216hotmailtaglines_stopmorespam_3mf