[YG Conlang Archives] > [jboske group] > messages [Date Index] [Thread Index] >
And Rosta scripsit:
> John seemed to be saying that underlying;y, water is still a substance,
> and that {lo djacu} means "portion of water". If so, then {lo djacu}
> means "countable portion of water".
Just so.
> > loi tu'o: substance
I think this works iff tu'o means mo'e zi'o, which is the sense given
in the discussion of reverse Polish notation in CLL, but the ma'oste
seems to make it rather mo'e zo'e. This is something the byfy needs
to straighten out.
> > lo PAmei: lojbanmass, sorry, we already tried that
>
> If it's not {tu'omei} then PA guarantees there are members.
I think tu'omei is garbage.
> {lo} guarantees the countability.
Ah, but beware: it guarantees the countability *of the mass*. PAmei
is one of those predicates, like casnu and selm'io, that are semantic
and intrinsic masses. lo selmi'o be la nitcion. means "one or more jbomasses
among whom Nick is famous", and loi selmi'o be la nitcion. would be
"the jbomass of jbomasses etc."
> I don't see how this can mean anything but Collective.
I agree.
> > PA lo piro loi tu'o: countable masses (which is the same as PA lo tu'o)
No, I think "lo tu'o" is rubbish unless "tu'o" here = "mo'e zo'e" again.
This distinction really must be straightened out!
> > > In other words, {tu'o} erases the boundaries between members
That would be black magic.
> > > Adding {piro} before {loi} makes sure you are actually referring
> > > to {loi} and not to {pisu'oloi}
> >
> > How safely established is that last bit?
>
> It is safely established on the basis of reason but not on the basis
> of general acknowledgement.
Since loi = pisu'oloi, this is very obscure to me. I take this remark
to be either wrong or tautological (viz. "adding {piro} before {loi}
make sure you are actually referring to the whole of the jbomass and
not to merely part of it.").
> Whereas the {lo du be ro} claim that there is something that is
> every member of lV'i broda,
Ah. I see. You are treating lo as singular(izing) here, which is
ultra vires. "lo du be X" is just "lo X"; one is no more singular
than the other.
> thuccing up. [_thuc_ is a borrowing from Edwin's version of English
> orthography]
I presume, then, that Edwinspeak merges /f/ and /T/ at least initially.
Does he also write "stith" for "stiff"?
> people to realize that try as they might, they are probably making
> loads of mistakes without realizing it, and that an ongoing programme
> of logical and jboscological vigilance is required to discover
> these errors.
+1
--
And through this revolting graveyard of the universe the muffled, maddening
beating of drums, and thin, monotonous whine of blasphemous flutes from
inconceivable, unlighted chambers beyond Time; the detestable pounding
and piping whereunto dance slowly, awkwardly, and absurdly the gigantic
tenebrous ultimate gods -- the blind, voiceless, mindless gargoyles whose soul
is Nyarlathotep. (Lovecraft) John Cowan|jcowan@hidden.email|ccil.org/~cowan