[YG Conlang Archives] > [jboske group] > messages [Date Index] [Thread Index] >
la and cusku di'e
> > > It's sensible to talk about two> > > collectives of people, so if 'loi prenu' is a collective of people, then> > > 're loi prenu' should be two collectives of people > > > >No, no more than 're lo'i prenu' would mean two sets of people > > I agree for LE-gadri, which admit a single underlying set which gadri do you mean by 'LE-gadri'?
As opposed to LAhE-gadri, but perhaps LAhEs are not gadri.
> But I think {re lu'o lo prenu} should work. {lu'o lo prenu}
> is a collective of some people, and there are many possible
> such collectives, so {lu'o} should be quantifiable. Same
> with {re lu'i lo prenu} for "two sets of (some) people"
>
> There has never been a strict definition of how LAhEs work
> though
I dislike this. I think "lu'o/lu'i lo prenu" should mean
"there are some people, each of whom is in lu'V, each of whose
constitutents is one of the people". That gives us the meaning
of "lau'i".
I think we agree about that part.
And LAhE is not a selbri: it doesn't mean "is a set"; rather it is a function, deriving a unique output from its argument.
That does make sense but it is not how I've thought of LAhEs so far. I think I have to think it over for a bit.
So if {re lu'o/lu'i lo prenu} mean anything, they should be
equivalent to {re lu'a lu'o/lu'i lo prenu} = {re lo prenu}.
But then would we need lo/le at all? Why not just use
{su'o lo'i broda} instead of {lo broda}, {ro le'i broda}
instead of {le broda}, etc.?
mu'o mi'e xorxes
_________________________________________________________________
MSN 8 limited-time offer: Join now and get 3 months FREE*.
http://join.msn.com/?page=dept/dialup&xAPID=42&PS=47575&PI=7324&DI=7474&SU=
http://www.hotmail.msn.com/cgi-bin/getmsg&HL=1216hotmailtaglines_newmsn8ishere_3mf