[YG Conlang Archives] > [jboske group] > messages [Date Index] [Thread Index] >
la nitcion cusku di'e
A. Dynamite Kid supplexes Andre: .i su'o lo prenrbriticybuldogo ja'a daxri la .andres. .i ro lo prenrbriticybuldogo naku daxri la .andres.
You mean: .i ro lo prenrbriticybuldogo na daxri la .andres. or: .i naku ro lo prenrbriticybuldogo cu daxri la .andres. Your version is false, being the precise negation of the first sentence.
.i pisu'o loi prenrbriticybuldogo ja'a daxri la .andres.
.i piro loi prenrbriticybuldogo naku daxri la .andres.
B. Dynamite Kid and Davey Boy Smith each pick up a chair and start
whaling on Andre:
.i su'o lo prenrbriticybuldogo ja'a daxri la .andres.
.i ro lo prenrbriticybuldogo ja'a daxri la .andres.
.i pisu'o loi prenrbriticybuldogo ja'a daxri la .andres.
.i piroi lo prenrbriticybuldogo ja'a daxri la .andres.
C. Dynamite Kid and Davey Boy Smith pick up the one chair, one on each
side, and start whaling on Andre:
.i su'o lo prenrbriticybuldogo naku daxri la .andres.
.i ro lo prenrbriticybuldogo naku daxri la .andres.
.i pisu'o loi prenrbriticybuldogo ja'a daxri la .andres.
.i piroi lo prenrbriticybuldogo ja'a daxri la .andres.
B is an individual plural ("they did it severally"). C is a collective
plural ("they did it together"). {piroloi} does not distinguish them.
Nor does identity of time or place.
For piroloi to be true in B, they have to be doing it "together",
even if with different chairs ("together" not necessarily meaning
"simultaneously", they make take turns, for example, and that
could count as doing it in collaboration. A way to distinguish
clearly B from C is to introduce the chair:
B. Dynamite Kid and Davey Boy Smith each pick up a chair and start whaling on Andre:
.i su'o lo prenrbriticybuldogo ja'a darxi la .andres. pa stizu .i ro lo prenrbriticybuldogo ja'a darxi la .andres. pa stizu .i pisu'o loi prenrbriticybuldogo ja'a darxi la .andres. pa stizu .i piro lo prenrbriticybuldogo na darxi la .andres. pa stizu
C. Dynamite Kid and Davey Boy Smith pick up the one chair, one on each side, and start whaling on Andre:
.i su'o lo prenrbriticybuldogo naku darxi la .andres. pa stizu
.i ro lo prenrbriticybuldogo naku darxi la .andres. pa stizu
.i pisu'o loi prenrbriticybuldogo ja'a darxi la .andres. pa stizu
.i piro lo prenrbriticybuldogo ja'a darxi la .andres. pa stizu
Notice that the {pisu'o} that does in C corresponds to the whole
mass, while the {pisu'o} that do in B are proper fractions.
B is expressible with {.e} and {joi} and (I contend) not {jo'u}:
.i la dainamaitkid. .e la deiviboismit. ja'a darxi la .andres
.i la dainamaitkid. joi la deiviboismit. ja'a darxi la .andres
.i la dainamaitkid. jo'u la deiviboismit. naku darxi la .andres
C is not expressible with {.e}, is expressible with {joi}, and is
expressible with {jo'u}:
.i la dainamaitkid. .e la deiviboismit. naku darxi la .andres
.i la dainamaitkid. joi la deiviboismit. ja'a darxi la .andres
.i la dainamaitkid. jo'u la deiviboismit. ja'a darxi la .andres
The collective, when applied to a bridi, asserts that the bridi is not
true of any one referent in isolation, but of the whole bunch.
I don't think this last bit is true in general. The collective says that the bridi is true of the whole bunch. It doesn't say anything about whether it is true of the members of the bunch.
The Lojbanmass is non-specific as to that question. Pragmatics may go hither and thither, but a simple way of saying "severally" and "together" seems to me necessary,
Is "the lojbanmass" to be taken as "some fraction (possibly the whole) of the bunch"?
By leaving lojbanmass non-specific and vague as it is, and allowing collective to be expressed as an extra cmavo, disambiguating lojbanmass (since collectives are a kind of lojbanmass),
In this post you treat lojban mass exclusively as collective, you don't say anything about the Substance sense. You are only playing with the fractional quantifiers, but in a strictly collectivist reading (i.e. fractions as submasses corresponding to subsets). You'd have to play with things like "Andre puts Dynamite Kid inside a bottle" being true when all he did was putting one of the Kid's fingers inside a bottle. That's "Substance". If you restrict yourself to proper members of the group, it's just collective.
Can I get an amen on any of this? Honestly, I can't lift a finger to do any more Level0 work (let alone lessons --- with masses in lesson 3) until I have a both coherent and fundamentalist story for gadri.
I think what you present in this post is a variant of the Collectivist position. 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