[YG Conlang Archives] > [jboske group] > messages [Date Index] [Thread Index] >
xorxes:
> la and cusku di'e
>
> >X has intrinsic boundaries if, when looking just at X and not
> >X's surroundings, you can tell where X ends. Equivalently, X
> >has intrinsic boundaries if there are criteria for deciding
> >that there are 3 X and not 2 or 4 X. The people who see six or
> >three quantities must be additively applying intrinsic
> >boundaries. The person who sees one quantity may or may not
> >be additively applying intrinsic boundaries; you won't know
> >until you know whether they use a Substance gadri or not
>
> If there is one and only one X, can there be any difference
> in it having intrinsic boundaries or not?
I do feel that xorxes has intrinsic boundaries and oxygen does
not. Furthermore, there is clearly a difference between a single
rabbit (in a world with only one rabbit) and the agglomeration
of all rabbit porridge.
That said, when {lo'i pa broda} is true, Substance and Unique
are equally good, and I've just sent off a proposal giving the
shortest gadri forms to Substance, precisely because most
sumti are singular, and so Substance will do just as well as
Unique, and in some cases better.
> There is no difference
> by the second definition because we never need to decide how
> many X there are. As for telling where something ends, I suppose
> it is metaphoric. For example, think of waves on the sea
> We can with more or less difficulty count them, but we don't
> really have criteria to say where one ends and the next one
> begins in a precise way
Quite true. Some intrinsic boundaries can be thus fuzzy.
> > > >"Not all metal is solid"
> > >
> > > {me'i jinme cu sligu} for the kind of general statement that
> > > only appears in Logic books, and {lo'e jinme me'iroi sligu}
> > > for the more relaxed everyday sense
> >
> >{me'i jinme} is no good if it is equivalent to {me'i lo}, because
> >it means "me'i countable units", so changes the meaning. The
> >me'iroi version is okay, but I would like "Not all metal is
> >solid" to be equivalent to, say, "Not all of the door is painted
> >black", which does seem to be potentially different from "The door
> >is not always painted black"
>
> In the case of predicates of the form "x1 is a quantity of ...",
> would you say that Substance-broda is equivalent to
> "the largest broda", i.e. "the total quantity of ..."?
Yes, and likewise for all predicates: Substance-gerku = the total
quantity of dog.
> >My stepping example should not be different from "I painted some of
> >the door. It was smooth." = "I painted a certain fraction of the
> >door". We generally need a way to do "a fraction of" (for all
> >different possible fractions)
>
> Right. Maybe I was wrong about the way piQ work with collectives,
> or maybe they have that function with collectives and the fraction
> function with other singular terms: {pimu le (pa) vorme} for
> "half the door"
>
> >I also think that "a fraction of
> >lo-Unique nanmu" is potentially different from "a fraction of
> >lo-Substance (of all) nanmu"
>
> Yes, clearly they are different. Half a man and half of mankind
>
> >Lo-Unique nanmu is a single man,
> >while lo-Substance nanmu is a huge pile of man porridge. "lo-Unique
> >djacu" looks like a single intrinsically bounded amount of water
> >(perhaps a glass of water). "lo-Substance djacu" looks like a
> >a great ocean of water
>
> Right. {Substance djacu} is the biggest of all djacu. But then
> I don't know why you'd want to say that you stepped on it.
Why wouldn't I want to say that? It would usually not be relevant
to note what fraction of Substance djacu I stepped in.
> If you start to talk about fractions of it, then you fall into
> countables again
Fractions aren't necessarily countables, and normally aren't.
> >Intrinsic boundaries have to be determinable from the inside;
> >you're not allowed to sneak a peek outside to check whether
> >there are other quantities around, or where the non-water
> >begins
>
> Does "fraction of door" have intrinsic boundaries?
No. Not normally.
> >If you see one puddle then it is intrinsically bounded
> >if, had there been another puddle, you'd be seeing two puddles,
> >but not if you'd still be seeing just a single quantity of
> >water
>
> So "fraction of door" is intrinsically bounded if it is cut
> off from the door, but not if it is just a part of the door
> that, say, you are seeing behind a piece of furniture. If it
> is cut off, then when there is another one we see two fractions,
> but if we see some more door because the piece of furniture is
> moved, then we still see a single fraction
Basically, yes.
> > > I probably don't understand the "intrinsic" part
> >
> >Does this message help? I'm not inventing arbitrary criteria;
> >I'm trying to elucidate the notion of countability, which is so
> >familiar from my beloved English
>
> Yes, I know, and your insights are helpful, but I'm still not
> sure I see the whole picture. When you say that not all metal
> is solid, aren't you establishing a boundary between metal that
> is solid and metal that is not solid?
I don't see how. Or at least, it doesn't mean that solid metal
has any kind of unity or boundaries determinable from the inside.
> > > >(How do we express
> > > >fractions like "almost all of"?)
> > >
> > > {piji'iro}?
> >
> >I was thinking {pi da'a}, but what I meant to ask was: How do
> >we say "I will eat half the apple", and "I ate a certain half
> >of the apple"?
>
> I guess {mi citka pimu le plise} and mi citka {le pimu le plise}
> But the first one would also probably be {mi citka lo pimu le
> plise}, so it would not be Substance. I know, the first one
> is: {mi citka lo'e pimu le plise}
That's a weird one, isn't it! I will eat the one and only half
of the apple! Like "the one and only twin"...
I think the solution is going to have to be on the lines of
not making countability intrinsic to lo/le/la. Countability
must be conferred either by an external quantifier or by an
internal PA (other than tu'o).
> >Ah: {si'e}. I had forgotten about it. (I don't
> >know how it works, though
>
> Neither do I
>
> >What is the difference between
> >{pi mu mei} and {pi mu si'e}?
>
> I have asked that before
>
> >What does {re si'e} mean? Oh,
> >I see: {re si'e} is "half". But how do we do "two thirds"?)
>
> The cmavo list seems to say {re si'e} is "half", but CLL
> gives {fi'ucisi'e} for "one third"
One for the BF.
--And.