[YG Conlang Archives] > [jboske group] > messages [Date Index] [Thread Index] >
John:
> 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
Yes. Consensus has been established on this point. (That BF should
rule on it, that it should mean mo'e zi'o, and that these discussions
are premised on it being mo'e zi'o.)
> > > 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.
It shouldn't be if mei does jbomasses....
> > {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."
"pa lo remei" should mean "a pair" to the extent that "pa nanmu"
means "a man". We may be unhappy about relying on Grice to guarantee
that interpretation, but PAmei does not seem different from nanmu.
> > > > In other words, {tu'o} erases the boundaries between members
>
> That would be black magic
It seems exactly right to me. And you seem to agree above, on condition
that (as is generally agreed), tu'o is mo'e zi'o.
(If it isn't mo'e zi'o, we can use {mo'e zi'o}, I guess!)
> > > > 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.")
If you are referring to part of it, then you are referring to part
of the whole of it. If you are referring to it, then you are referring
to the whole of it. The *only* function of {pi ro} is to cancel the
implicit {pisu'o}; it adds nothing to the meaning, and serves merely
to block {pisu'o} from being added. If there was a cmavo that just
meant "do not insert the elliptized cmavo", it would work equally
well.
> > 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
"lo du be X" is not just "lo X". If this is not sufficiently obvious
from "lo du be ro", try "lo du be no" -- "lo du be no broda" means
"something that is not broda", it does not mean "no broda".
> > 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"?
He does write "lath from Edwin", yes.
--And.