[YG Conlang Archives] > [jboske group] > messages [Date Index] [Thread Index] >
On Mon, Dec 23, 2002 at 01:10:46PM +0000, Jorge Llambias wrote:
> 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.
But both of them seperately do carry the piano. This could maybe
work as nick was saying if we use context to assume they are talking
about a particular event of piano carrying.
> 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
No. pisu'o loi [ro] broda == pisu'o lu'o ro broda
> piro loi broda = su'o lu'o ro broda = ro lu'o ro broda
No. piro loi [ro] broda == piro lu'o ro broda.
You can't get rid of the "pi". lu'o still takes one.
> 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...".
Just think of this normally for a second. If it is not the case
that some of it brodas, then it must be the case that all of it
does not broda. If it is not the case that all of it does not
broda, then some of it must broda. I think DeMorgan works exactly
as expected here.
--
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:
bin_ZFkaBpoF9.bin
Description: application/ygp-stripped