[YG Conlang Archives] > [jboske group] > messages [Date Index] [Thread Index] >
la djorden cusku di'e
> > B: John and James separately
> > 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.
Why do you say that {pisu'o ... naku} is false? Some fraction
(namely the whole) does not carry the piano.
You seem to be assuming {naku piro} = {pisu'o naku}, which
is false. The first entails the second, but not the other way.
In fact {piro} gives a singular term, so {naku piro} = {piro naku}.
If it is false that the whole does something then the whole
does not do it.
Even if you don't agree about the details of this, to see how
DeMorgan works with fractions it is better to write them as:
pisu'o loi broda = su'o lu'o su'o broda
piro loi broda = su'o lu'o ro broda = ro lu'o ro broda
The last one is true because there is only one {lu'o ro broda}.
so {naku pisu'o loi broda} is {naku su'o lu'o su'o broda}
which is {ro lu'o su'o broda naku}, "for every submass, it is
not the case that...", which is very different from "for the
whole, it is not the case that...".
mu'o mi'e xorxes
_________________________________________________________________
Add photos to your e-mail with MSN 8. Get 3 months FREE*.
http://join.msn.com/?page=features/featuredemail&xAPID=42&PS=47575&PI=7324&DI=7474&SU=
http://www.hotmail.msn.com/cgi-bin/getmsg&HL=1216hotmailtaglines_addphotos_3mf