[YG Conlang Archives] > [jboske group] > messages [Date Index] [Thread Index] >
xorxes:
> la and cusku di'e
>
> > > >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
>
> Yes. There is no disagreement about how to do distributive
> countables, is there? Doesn't everybody agree that {re djacu}
> is "two waters" and that it refers to two quantities of water
> with contextual boundaries? (two glasses of water, two lakes,
> whatever. My impression is that there is unanimity about this
> part
Not everybody seems to accept that the boundaries must be
intrinsic. Some people seem to think that the individuals can
be arbitrarily delimited.
> > > 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?
>
> I can't see fractions of Substance making much sense. I think
> I see Substance just as Unique
"Not all metal is solid"
+ exx below
> >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
>
> I'd use Unique there. Or just {le djacu} if +specific is
> required
Unique won't do for me, because we're dealing with two different
amounts of water; at the very least they are distinct pagbu
be lo-Unique djacu. {le djacu} won't do either, because the
water is not intrinsically bounded.
Note that I can't even paraphrase with pagbu, because if I say
"le pagbu", I am saying that the pagbu is intrinsically delimited.
So I need "le-Substance pagbu be lo-Unique djacu", or
"le-Substance fraction be lo-Unique djacu". (How do we express
fractions like "almost all of"?)
--And.