[YG Conlang Archives] > [jboske group] > messages [Date Index] [Thread Index] >
At 11:59 PM 12/20/02 +0000, And Rosta wrote:
Even if you do want to argue as though "lei/loi = collective" were a given, it's not going to help in discussing things with Lojbab, because he is simply going to argue on the basis of *his* understanding of loi, which is some kind of conflation of Substance and Collective. And the result will be wasted discussion.
I've reached that conclusion as well. That seems to be the norm in arguments between me and either you or Jorge.
In other words, your argument is:
1. Inner quantifiers are incompatible with Substance. (True.)
2. {lei/loi PA} is grammatical and presumably meaningful.
Why does it have to be meaningful? In the case of loi, it almost certainly is not meaningful. In the case of lei it is, to the extent that you are using the quantifier to communicate the in-mind referent.
3. Therefore, {lei/loi} mustn't be Substance.
4. This leaves the way open for {lei/loi} to just do Collective,
as per standard piano-carrying examples.
lojbab -- lojbab lojbab@hidden.email Bob LeChevalier, President, The Logical Language Group, Inc. 2904 Beau Lane, Fairfax VA 22031-1303 USA 703-385-0273 Artificial language Loglan/Lojban: http://www.lojban.org