[YG Conlang Archives] > [jboske group] > messages [Date Index] [Thread Index] >
la and cusku di'e
> OK. And you're saying that two pictures of three snakes > can be pictures of different things, but two branches that > each looks like three snakes must look like the same thing? When you put it that way, it sounds wrong, doesn't it. "The branch is shaped as if it were three snakes." How do we say that?
Actually, I meant to conclude the opposite. The two branches do look like the same thing. They are similar to the extent that they both look like three snakes. In the same way, the two pictures are similar in that they are both pictures of three snakes, so they do depict "the same thing".
I also wonder what "se ckaji LEka ce'u broda ci since" means, given that "ko'a se ckaji LEka broda" normally means "ko'a broda", but the ci broda is quantified in the subordinate bridi.
("ckaji", not "se ckaji". It means "has property" despite its gloss.)
I can't see the quantification being in the subordinate bridi
making any difference here.
Anyway, yes, two poems about three snakes can be poems about different snakes.
I agree, if there are three snakes (real or imaginary) such that the poem is about them. But in the opaque sense, two poems about three snakes do have the same subject. If the teacher sets the assignment: "write a composition about three snakes", won't every composition have the same subject?
(I want to avoid talk about pictures because of their ambiguity.) But to say that two branches that each look look three snakes must look like the same thing is somehow wrong. They each have the same property, but "looking like the same thing" fails to capture that -- it is too strong.
I agree it is too strong because "the same thing" tends to suggest a transparent reading, which is the wrong reading.
> But don't we want every picture of a snake (opaque sense) > to have the same subject matter? Only in the sense that if we each eat fish and chips then we have had the same meal.
Right. We both ate Mr Fish-and-Chips.
To be specific, I think the story about subject-matter is okay. But I still am not happy with the way of doing "banana-shaped", "shape of three snakes", "taste of a ripe fig", "smell like a couple of Turkish wrestlers". It's not good enough to just define a cmavo and say "Lo! This meaning is to be expressed by this cmavo". I/we need to actually understand the underlying logic. Surely there is an answer that, once found, will seem obvious.
Did you abandon Unique for this just because we can't very well
do "three snakes" as Unique? I don't have a problem with
{<Unique> since cimei} other than it is a bit clumsy in form,
but the meaning I think is correct.
> {kairterpa}'s x2 can be any property. I'm not sure I can
> clearly see the difference between {le ka ce'u du la superman}
> and {le ka ro me la superman cu me ce'u}, but if there is a
> difference then one can fear things with one of the properties
> or with the other. Both can be used with {kairterpa}. We could
> also use {le ka ce'u prenrsupermanu}
The idea is that -fears would bind ce'u in {LEka me ce'u} with
a value along the lines of "is to be feared". -reveres would
bind with a value like "is to be revered".
That's the same for {kairterpa}. The x2 is the property such
that things having that property cause fear in x1 by virtue
of having that property.
In underlying logic this would translate as: is-to-be-feared cei broda zo'u -fears LEdu'u ro me LA superman broda So I think it's fundamentally different from kairterpa.
I'm not sure I follow that. mu'o mi'e xorxes _________________________________________________________________MSN 8: advanced junk mail protection and 3 months FREE*. http://join.msn.com/?page=features/junkmail&xAPID=42&PS=47575&PI=7324&DI=7474&SU= http://www.hotmail.msn.com/cgi-bin/getmsg&HL=1216hotmailtaglines_advancedjmf_3mf