[YG Conlang Archives] > [jboske group] > messages [Date Index] [Thread Index] >
On Mon, Dec 23, 2002 at 04:02:29PM +0000, Jorge Llambias wrote:
> la djorden cusku di'e
> > > Conversely: That the whole pie is such that I don't eat
> > > it all does not mean that there is no fraction that I eat.
> >
> >piro lei cidja naku se citka mi does mean there is no fraction that
> >you eat.
>
> No it doesn't. It says that the whole is such that I don't
> eat it. It says nothing about other fractions of the whole.
> You are reading it as "each fraction is such that I don't
> eat it", but all it says is "the biggest fraction is such
> that I don't it eat", it does not say anything about smaller
> fractions.
I think you're thinking of "naku piro".
> >piro lei cidja na se citka mi allows that you might have
> >eaten a fraction.
>
> Yes, it does. {naku piro} is in fact identical to
> {piro naku}, because {piro} is a singular term.
Bullshit. Give me *something* in terms of support. You can't just
pull this stuff out of your ass. Sorry to be harsh, but you can't
just state your position and think that that is somehow support for
it.
> >I don't see how any of this helps your default quantifer foobar.
>
> First let us be clear that "the biggest fraction" and
> "each fraction" are different things, and that {piro}
> means "the biggest fraction" = "the whole" and not
> "each fraction". If we don't agree about that, I can't
> go on with my explanation.
Your explanation so far has consisted of you simply stating a
different interpretation with absolutely no support in terms of
either (i) compliance with CLL (ii) compliance with past usage (iii)
better utility. (Those in order of importance).
--
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:
binBVZqyCUxhD.bin
Description: application/ygp-stripped