[YG Conlang Archives] > [jboske group] > messages [Date Index] [Thread Index] >
xorxes:
> la and cusku di'e
>
> >The difference here, though, is that the non-animals can't be
> >seen as animals by adding a criterion of animalhood and the
> >animals can be seen as non-animals by erasing a criterion of
> >animalhood
>
> Lojbab said he had no trouble seeing sofas as animals, and John
> has no problem with teddy bears as {cribe}, so a danlu-gadri
> might be useful for them
I was going to say that the argument oughtn't to be allowed to
be hampered by the perversity that Lojbab sometimes backs into,
but on further reflection I suppose one could conceivably have
an animacy parameter that could be reversed by gadri-like words,
so that one can have inanimate dog and animate sofa. But a key
difference between animacy and countability is that animacy
doesn't affect other aspects of gadri, whereas noncountability,
whether basic or derived, renders counting-quantifiers and
collectives nonsensical. So that is why countability, but not
animacy, needs to be accommodated in the gadri system.
> >How, then, do we talk about things that are "broda with the
> >addition of intrinsic boundaries" and "broda with the subtraction
> >of intrinsic boundaries"?
>
> For addition, nothing is needed because every broda is always
> countable in Lojban. We all agree about {re djacu} implying
> contextual boundaries. (This applies as much to distributive
> as to collective reference.)
Hang on though: this is still not a settled issue. Several of
us, including, I thought, you (in your previous message), opine
that, say, "djacu" is basically uncountable, but gets boundaries
added when used with an individuals-gadri (or perhaps more
generally a non-Substance gadri). Some where I'm at at the
moment is that some predicates lack intrinsic boundaries and
need them added when used with non-Substance gadri.
> For the subtraction of boundaries, we can use "Unique"
> Substance is always a subtype of Unique anyway, isn't it?
> If there is only one member, the idea of boundaries between
> members loses its meaning. So {lo'e djacu} works well for
> "water" as substance:
There is still a relevant distinction between pi ro and pi me'i
and pi su'o. And pi me'i and pi su'o can be +specific as well
as -specific. Given that, I can't see a way to avoid
Substance-gadri. Can you?
> le botpi e le kabri cu vasru lo djacu
> The bottle contains a (=some) water and
> the glass contains a (=some) water
>
> le botpi e le kabri cu vasru lo'e djacu
> There is water in the bottle and in the glass
>
> Subtle difference, but the second one says that the bottle
> and the glass contain the same stuff while the first one says
> that each contains a water (there is a different water in
> each container)
There is a difference between an (+/-specific) intrinsically
bounded amount of water and some (+/-specific) water that
is not intrinsically bounded.
"I stepped in (some) water. It was muddy. Then I washed my
feet with (some) water. It was clean." I see these as
+specific -intrinsically-bounded. If lVi were the Substance-
gadri, I'd use lei for these.
--And.