[YG Conlang Archives] > [jboske group] > messages [Date Index] [Thread Index] >
I commend you guys for your premisses, and blast you for your confusion.
So here is what xorxes and I agree on: set: lu'iro lu'ile lu'ila (=lo'i/le'i/la'i) quantified: PA(ro) PAle PAla substance: lu'oiro lu'oile lu'oila collective: lu'oro lu'ole lu'ola (=(piro)loi/lei/lai) 'unique': lu'airo lu'aile lu'aila
The ontology is certainly a sound basis for anything to be said on gadri
Stuff still up in the air: * Is a gadri for Prototypical (or Representative Imaginary, or whatever) logically sound? If it isn't, then lo'e/le'e are short for lu'airo/lu'aile. If it is, then CLL compatibility might argue for lo'e/le'e as the Prototypical.
By 'logically sound', what do you mean? Because 'prototype' seems to be a psychological, rather than logical, construct.
* Is there any way to make any of the above a bit shorter?
Here comes trouble...
* Is there any scope to fiddle with default interpretations of bare gadri?
By the fundamentalist imperative, not much.
I propose, as the solution that would allow the greatest economy in usage conditioned only by considerations of meaning, that bare lo/le/la should be interpreted as if preceded by lu'oiro.
And in a fundamentalist imperative where CLL compatibility and past usage outweigh perceived utility and shortness, this is of course unacceptable.
That would then give the following table of shortest forms: set: lo'i le'i la'i quantified: PA PAle PAla substance: lo le la collective: loi lei lai 'unique': lu'airo (~lo'e) lu'airole (~ le'e) lu'aila
Doing the following:
* Regarding 'substance' as the basic meaning of {loi}
* Allowing that the piano carriers define 'substance' as well as
'collective' --- they just define 'collective' better --- and the "if
one of us then all of us" definition (CLL p. 123) fits substance and
not collective
* Regarding the definition lo = su'o pa as inviolable * Allowing the statistical article to go back to gismu* Rejecting the DeLong/LeChevalier line of {lo prenu remei cu bevri}, because if {remei} is a mass we're back to square one (it could still be one person doing the carrying), and if {remei} is a collective... well, that might work, but it needs a lot of thinking
I come up with this rather messier paradigm --- which does not throw existing Lojban out:
set: lo'i le'i la'i
quant: (PA)lo (PA)le (PA)la
substance: loi loi loi
collective: lu'oi ro lu'oi le lu'oi la
coll., alt. lo romei be lo lo romei be le lo romei be la
(if {mei} becomes collective not substance, which is not impossible)
unique: lu'ai ro lo lu'ai ro le lu'ai ro la
prototype: lo'e le'e
mode: lo fadni belo'i lo fadni bele'i lo fadni be la'i
It makes infinite sense to me that the default quantifier between LAhE
and LE be {ro}, as is clear by inspection; but whatever.
The default inner PA for bare lo/le/la would be tu'o.
The default inner PA for substances shall indeed be tu'o, that's the whole point of substances, and I reject the perpetuation of error. Inasmuch as CLL perpetuates this confusion, this part of it I reject.
An overt PA would change the interpretation from substance: quantified: loPA = su'oloPA lePA = rolePA substance: lo(tu'o) le(tu'o) An indeterminable amount of prior usage would be invalidated,
Too much: you're making all references to individuals change, and I content we still do mostly want to talk about individuals.
but that is a small price to pay, because lo/le/la would at last be assigned to a role where they would properly have highest frequency.
A Lojban Mark II statement. I can't countenance so much of a change.
No new gadri would be required. And just 2 new LAhE would be required.
This I like, and wish to stick with. == == == == == == == == == == == == == == == == == ==Nick Nicholas, Breathing | le'o ko na rivbi fi'inai palci je tolvri danlu opoudjis@hidden.email | -- Miguel Cervantes tr. Jorge LLambias