[YG Conlang Archives] > [jboske group] > messages [Date Index] [Thread Index] >
Lojbab:
> At 04:24 PM 12/21/02 +0000, And Rosta wrote:
> >Lojbab:
> > > At 03:28 PM 12/21/02 +1100, Nick Nicholas wrote:
> > > >Two: Aside to the founders persisting in conflating substance and
> > > >collective. If one man carries a piano, {loi nanmu cu bevri lo pipno}
> > > >If two do separately, {loi nanmu cu bevri lo pipno}. If two do so
> > > >together, {loi nanmu cu bevri lo pipno}. A pox on you if you refuse to
> > > >grant us a way of distinguishing the last two cases
> > >
> > > 1. I would not use "loi" for any of these
> >
> >How would you say "Some men jointly carried a piano"?
>
> THAT one I would use loi, because the number is unspecified. If it is two
> particular men, then it is lei re. If it is two men, but not any
> particular two men, I would use lo nanmu remei
{lo nanmu remei} is OK. Or {lu'o su'o nanmu}, or whatever the LAhE
for Collective ends up being.
> >Anyway, even if you wouldn't use "loi" for any of them, you *could*,
> >given the current prescription
>
> loi would include all of them, but would not distinguish them
For two men carrying separately, Collective would be pretty misleading
and implausible in the average context.
> BTW, Nora doesn't want to get involved (she is reading about one message in
> 20) but posited two ideas to throw into the hoop:
>
> The examples you've been using have either been uniform substances or
> countable nouns in English. Nora points out that Lojban selbri also have
> adjectival and verbal characteristics. She asks whether all your various
> analyses of djacu hold up when translating it as "watery (thing)", and how
> you handle blanu which is normally an adjective in English. I think that
> she suspects that we are as usual getting hung up in English rather than
> Lojban semantics
I see no problem with these. The majority view is one that I imagine
Nora supports, namely that countability is imposed by gadri choice.
> Nora also opines that the inner quantifier of loi is NOT necessarily the
> same as the inner quantifier of lo'i, disagreeing with me (and she
> convinces me). The supervisor who does not physically carry the piano
> could be part of loi/lei pipnybevri, but they would NOT be lo pipnybevri,
> and hence not members of lo'i pipnybevri
Something's gone wrong either with Nora's reasoning or with your
reporting of it. It is the Collective that is lo pipnybevri.
Neither the supervisor nor each physically active carrier is
lo pipnybevri or loi-Collective pipnybevri.
If lei prenu cu pipnybevri, can the supervisor be included as
a member of lei prenu? Yes, but no member of lei prenu is
pipnybevri.
--And.