[YG Conlang Archives] > [jboske group] > messages [Date Index] [Thread Index] >
Lojbab:
> At 02:48 PM 12/28/02 +0000, And Rosta wrote:
> > > > This solution is not always satisfactory, though. Consider:
> > > >
> > > > This branch has the shape of three intertwined snakes
> > > >
> > > > It is not enough to say there are in some world three snakes
> > > > that have the shape of this branch. That statement would presumably
> > > > be true whatever the shape of the branch
> > >
> > > Eh?
> > >
> > > You gotta mold the snakes into the shape you want in some world or
> > > over
> > >
> > > I simply cannot see the problem with:
> > >
> > > su'o da poi munje ku'o
> > > ci de poi since
> > > zi'e poi da vasru de
> > > zo'u:
> > > le ti tricyspi tarmi simsa
> > > lu'o ci de poi gunma torni [vi da]
> >
> >The problem is that virtually any shape is the shape of some three
> >snakes in some imaginary world. I don't deny that Grice can come
> >to the rescue somehow, but He needs to be given a helping hand by
> >what we actually say
>
> lo'ese'o since cimei
> should mean the snake-threesome typicality that I internally generate
lo'e broda has only properties that inherit to its typical instances;
being depicted by this picture is not such a property.
> I also wonder whether simlu would be better than simsa - and simlu should
> be defined so that it is clearly understood that the resembled need not be
> a real thing
Ah, now *that* is more promising. But how to work it up into an
actual solution? "In shape, LE tricyspi simlu LEka ce'u since cimei"
LE tricyspi cu ckaji zei simlu LEka ce'u since cimei kei LEka
ma kau tarmi ce'u
-- sounds like a xorxesian way of doing it.
> > > Gricean salvator again. Don't read in any implicit quantifier where it
> > > makes no sense. And do no such reasoning, unless you insert all
> > > explicit quantifiers: {loi} by itself has no meaning, unless it's
> > > quantified
> >
> >CLL
> >{loi} = {pisu'o loi} & means "pisu'o loi"
> >{piroloi} means "piro loi" = "loi"
>
> Where is the latter? loi should have a default quantifier of su'o in
> CLL. There seems to be disagreement as to what it should be for lei
bare {loi} (the word) means "pisu'oloi" (the meaning)
{piroloi} means "loi".
That is, "pisu'oloi" means "pisu'opiroloi".
This is not stated in CLL; it is deduced.
> >you:
> >{loi} ambiguous between {pisu'oloi}, "pisu'oloi", and {piroloi}, "loi"
> >
> >You are deviating from CLL. If CLL is to be changed here, better to
> >make bare {loi} mean "loi" (= "piroloi")
>
> That would change the default quantifier
Yes. If Nick wants to deviate from CLL then the sensible way to do
it is by making the default quantifier the one that is semantically
vacuous. That way, bare {loi} actually means "loi".
--And.