[YG Conlang Archives] > [jboske group] > messages [Date Index] [Thread Index] >
On Mon, Dec 23, 2002 at 02:20:37PM +1100, Nick Nicholas wrote:
> Jordan, on whether a collective is truly {piroloi} or not, I'm
> deferring to Jorge and And, since they had raised the
> counterarguments. But one of your quiz responses (which I will go
> through) has me in anguish:
They're saying no? Or are they saying yes because they think "loi"
means collective anyway? Can someone please define this "collective"
stuff?
> Your responses to 'separately' and 'together' are:
>
> > B: John and James separately
> > le re nanmu ja'a bevri
> > lei re nanmu ja'a bevri
> > le remei be lo'i nanmu ja'a bevri
> > ge la djan. gi la djeimyz. bevri
> > la djan. joi la djeumyz. ja'a bevri
> > la djan jo'u la djeimyz. ja'a bevri
>
> > C: John and James together
> > le re nanmu na bevri
> > lei re nanmu ja'a bevri
> > le remei be lo'i nanmu ja'a bevri
> > naku ge la djan. gi la djeimyz bevri
> > la djan. joi la djeumyz. ja'a bevri
> > la djan jo'u la djeimyz. ja'a bevri
>
> ... To me this makes no sense --- C/jo'u in particular. If John and
> James lift the piano separately, why do you want to say that {la
> djan. jo'u la djeimyz. jo'u bevri}? I thought the whole point of jo'u
> was emphasising the involvement of both in the same predication ---
> including same time and place and event.
Well here's the thing, if we assume piro loi for jo'u:
naku la djan. jo'u la djeimez. bevri
naku piro lu'o la djan. ce la djeimez. bevri
pisu'o lu'o la djan. ce la djeimez. naku bevri
which is false. Thus "naku naku la djan. jo'u la djeimez. bevri" must
be true.
This fits with the meaning of "piro", which doesn't require that
things be connected in terms of time/space. Perhaps this means
"jo'u" isn't piro. Actually "jo'u" is probably just a kind of ".e"
with a metalinguistic suggestion that they're connected. So all
my stuff on "jo'u" was based on the above, but you were interested
in the "mei" thing mainly anyway, I think, so even if we can't have
jo'u == piro it doesn't matter.
Anyway, that all aside, I still don't see the problem, if there is
one. Forgive me if I'm not giving you guys the benefit of the
doubt, but And has a habit of using gadri in a rediculously incorrect
manner (e.g. he uses "lai" everywhere that "la" should be), so...
> As it stands, your only distinction between the two scenarios is
> negative. So if I want to say the first, I say {lei re nanmu .e nai
> le re nanmu} vs. {lei re nanmu .e le re nanmu}? Yuck.
Huh? The first was true for "le re nanmu" and the second was false
for "le re nanmu". Note that in reality the second *might* be true
for "le re nanmu" if "piro lei" would've been true and not just
"pisu'o lei", but that's neither here nor there.
Anyway, here's how I'd say each:
B) le re nanmu cu bevri
C) lei re nanmu cu bevri
Sure, the second is true in the B case, but why would I say it?
The maxim of quality requires that since it takes no more effort I
would say the more obvious version.
> I also take it that in both cases, you would say {piro lei re nanmu}?
> If so, {piroloi} still isn't making the differentiation I want.
No. In the second case, you can't infer "piro lei". Because
"together" may mean john is moving the piano and james is holding
open the door. In the first case you can infer "piro lei" because
we already know that they individually are doing their thing.
> ***
>
> Bob, I think I got a gotcha with your duet. The duet has a
> commonality of purpose. Any two random people don't.
Maxim foobar foo foo blah blah.
> You would claim that the mass of Paul and John wrote the Beatles
> songs, whether it was true that Paul actually did one on his own or
> not.
>
> Now let's form a mass of Paul, John, and Henry Kissinger. That mass
> wrote the Beatles songs, true. But there's an excellent reason why
> Hank doesn't fit into this picture.
Maxim blah blah foo foo.
Remember from logic:
la djan. finti lei se sanga
therefore
la djan. .a la xenris. finti lei se sanga
This does *not* mean that lojban connectives are broken. Likewise
your above foo doesn't prove diddly about brokeness of lojbanmasses.
> Never mind your piano carrying supervisor, at least she's somehow
> involved with the piano carrying. Hank isn't. How do we exclude him
> from {lei finti be le selsanga}? (Remember what Jordan just said: if
> any pamei is involved, then any remei is involved.) And pragmatics
> isn't enough of an answer.
Yes it is. If it is enough of an answer for the (much more
fundamental) |- (x)(Fx -> (y)(Fx v Fy)) stuff, then it's definitely
enough for this.
--
Jordan DeLong - fracture@hidden.email
lu zo'o loi censa bakni cu terzba le zaltapla poi xagrai li'u
sei la mark. tuen. cusku
Attachment:
binOnhdRWZeHw.bin
Description: application/ygp-stripped