[YG Conlang Archives] > [jboske group] > messages [Date Index] [Thread Index] >
At 02:27 PM 12/22/02 +1100, Nick Nicholas wrote:
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
...
> 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}
That seems to contradict the above
* 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
OK, I think
* Regarding the definition lo = su'o pa as inviolable
yes
* Allowing the statistical article to go back to gismu
??? fadni per below?
* Rejecting the DeLong/LeChevalier line of {lo prenu remei cu bevri},
because if {remei} is a mass
as it is defined in the word lists (not just CLL)
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
Depending on how many gadri members there are in the three series, places could be added to -mei to allow access to them but I stand by the x1 unless you've got a wallop of usage to go along with all this theory. But if places are added, you can have access to collective through mei even if the substance stays in x1 (or if collective becomes x1 then the substance can be an oblique place).
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
> No new gadri would be required. And just 2 new LAhE would be
> required.
This I like, and wish to stick with.
I could probably live with that, as well as adding to the structure of mei if needed.
I generally approve of your "fundamentalist" pose - whether I agree with all the conclusions, it sure cuts away a lot of the ornate embellishments that the semanticists seem to want. (I should interject at this point that one criticism that Lojban has seen from old Loglanists as well as some newcomers who have turned away, is that we have added lots of baroque ornateness to what was otherwise a relatively simple language. We should bear this criticism in mind before ascending to new heights of baroqueness.
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