[YG Conlang Archives] > [jboske group] > messages [Date Index] [Thread Index] >
xorxes:
> la and cusku di'e
> > > >1a is the meaning expressed by lo/le/la in Standard Lojban
> > > >1b is the meaning expressed by pisu'oloi in SL
> > > >1c is one of the meanings Unique was meant to capture
> > > >1d is the meaning expressed by (tu'o)lo(tu'o) in Excellent
> > > > Solution. According to some it is expressed by SL loi/lei/lai
> >
> >Returning to an earlier discussion of ours, is there a distinction
> >between "I touched Nick" and "I touched the whole of Nick"? I'm
> >not sure, because you have shown me that the 'opposite' of
> >"I touched (some) part of Nick, I touched some of Nick" is "I
> >touched every bit of Nick"
>
> At least if we use {pencu}, it can't make a difference whether
> we use {la nitcion} or {piro la nitcion} in x2, because it is
> in x3 that we specify where he is touched
>
> >If it is generally the case that {piroX}
> >= {X}, then yes, 1d would be {piroloi}, assuming of course that SL
> >accepts that {piro X} = {X} and not "every portion of X"
>
> It would be good to have that clarified, but that seems to be
> what is consistent with CLL. Similarly {piso'i} is "a large
> portion" and not "many portions"
The pisu'o default on loi is unfortunate, then, not just because
piQ looks to be generally mabla but because we have the strange
situation whereby:
{loi} means "a fraction of loi"
{piroloi} means "loi"
So all {piro} does is cancel the implicit {pisu'o}.
> >I think
> >I am persuaded by you that piroX=X, though I am still not persuaded
> >that piQ is not mabla
>
> I don't know whether or not it is mabla, but I do think it has not
> been sufficiently explored yet
My position is that the meaning that we discern for piQ is a selbri
meaning that should be said with si'e or similar. SL presumably has
to find a way to rescue sense from piQ, but I don't see why AL
should not just ditch it.
> > > Very persuasive examples. Some of them might be kludged with
> > > {lo'ei}:
> > >
> > > >He's looking for every Danish mermaid
> > >
> > > ko'a buska lo'ei danko fipni'u romei
> >
> >I thought it was "danmo"
>
> {danmo} means "smoke"
>
> >Would it work if you added "so
> >he can photograph her"? I think not
>
> i semu'ibo ko'a kacma terxra ro lu'a ri
I have no intuitions about whether {ro lu'a ri} makes sense,
because I can't reason about {lo'ei}.
> What would happen with the {troci le du'u facki} periphrasis?
>
> ko'a troci le du'u facki ro da poi danko fipni'u
> i semu'ibo ko'a kacma terxra ro da
>
> The motivation is for the trying, not for the discovering,
> so it can't be inside {le du'u}, but the scope of the
> first {ro da} can't be extended outside {ledu'u}
> The second sentence is possibly vacuous, but that
> should not be a problem. He tries to find them all
> so that he can fotograph each of them
I think I had a purpose in mind, not a motive, so:
"He tries to bring it about that [for each m he finds m
with the result that he can photograph m]."
I can't find a sensical English sentence that would preserve
the opaque/intensional reading but involve a motive for the
trying.
"Because John/Jane wants to photograph every Danish mermaid, John
tries to find every Danish mermaid/!her."
--And.