[YG Conlang Archives] > [jboske group] > messages [Date Index] [Thread Index] >
la and cusku di'e
BTW, this gives us *three* possibilities for the meaning of "lu'i ri", where ri already refers to a set. 1. The set containing ri as its sole member. 2. The set ri. 3. The underlying set of ri's antecedent.
I would discard 3 in favour of {lu'i ro ri}, which is consistent
with 1. I don't want 2.
> 1- lu'o lo'i broda = loi broda > 2- lu'o ro lo broda = loi broda > 3- lu'o da poi selcmi be ro broda = loi broda > > 2 and 3 are incompatible. I want 2. You want 1 and 3 Yes. But suppose the rule is that LAhe(x) = the LAhE of the constituents of x, and if x has no constituents then x is a constituent of itself. 'Constituent' = member of set and member of collective. It seems to me, though the haze of my woolly thinking, that this rule will cover 1, 2 and 3.
There's a problem with 2 if brodas are sets though. Ah, that's what you say next:
But "lu'o ro lo selcmi" would yield the collective of the members of each selcmi, not the collective of the selcmi. I don't know whether you could live with that.
I think the scheme where what follows LAhE is always taken as an individual rather than a set is simpler, but I guess I could live with either convention. We wouldn't need special rules for la'e, lu'e and tu'a with my approach though. mu'o mi'e xorxes _________________________________________________________________The new MSN 8: smart spam protection and 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_smartspamprotection_3mf