[YG Conlang Archives] > [jboske group] > messages [Date Index] [Thread Index] >
xorxes:
> la and cusku di'e
>
> > > >... and {pi ro loi} can do collectives after all? (My real worry was
> > > >individuals vs. collective; substance I thought was taken care of with
> > > >tu'o anyway.)
> > >
> > > Yes, but {pisu'o loi} does collectives to the same extent
> > > that {piro loi} does collectives. When they do, one gives
> > > "some broda collectively" and the other gives "every broda
> > > collectively"
> >
> >I have a slight reservation about this. If one must use inner
> >tu'o to get Substance (as we would like in AL), then all well
> >and good. But if {loi (ro)} can refer to substance then there
> >is no guarantee that {pi su'o loi ro} gives you a collective:
> >{pi mu loi ci broda nanmu} might give you, say, the bottom
> >halves of three people, or bodyparts totalling half the whole
>
> I agree, but the same argument applies to piro. If pimu can give
> you half of the goo then piro is the whole goo, not necessarily
> the total number acting together. So, either every fractional
> with inner ro gives collectives, or every fractional with inner
> ro, including piro, admits of the substance reading
I don't agree about piro. If the inner PA is not tu'o, then it
guarantees that we are dealing with something with members, i.e.
with a collective. Since it is a jbomass it can be seen as
substance, but this matters only when taking less than the
whole, because when it is seen as substance the boundaries of
the fraction need not correspond to boundaries between members.
I don't see a clear difference between the whole goo and the total
number acting together. What sort of difference do you see between
these?
(Usual caveat: I'm talking about SL.)
--And.