[YG Conlang Archives] > [jboske group] > messages [Date Index] [Thread Index] >
xorxes:
> 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
Your solution is the best, I think.
> > > 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
Okay. I'll toe your line, and you can correct me if I stray
from it.
Maybe you could document it on the wiki? Or are you, like me,
too busy?
--And.