[YG Conlang Archives] > [jboske group] > messages [Date Index] [Thread Index] >
John:
> And Rosta scripsit:
>
> > > > > > 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
>
> lo tu'o djacu, fair enough, but lo tu'o prenu would say not "I am not
> counting the prenu", but "the prenu cannot be counted (by anyone)",
> which is not true
But it is *exactly* true of person substance!
"There was person all over the road"
"There was a countable portion of person all over the road"
-- you *are* saying "the prenu can't be counted, because their
boundaries have been erased".
> > 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
>
> I think we agree, but I still find your notation rebarbative, as if
> "loi" *by rights* meant "pi ro loi". Why not say that {pi ro loi}
> means "pi ro loi", and that {loi} and {pi su'o loi} mean "loi" =
> "pi su'o loi"?
Because, for thux sake, "piroloi" means "the whole of the mass of"
and "pi su'o loi" means "part of the mass of" or equivalently
"part of the whole of the mass of". Since "piro" means "the whole
of" and "pisu'o" means "part of", it stands to reason that "loi"
must mean "the mass of". Since "the whole of X" means the same as
"X", it follows that "piroloi" means the same as "loi".
Saying that {loi} and {pi su'o loi} mean "loi" = "pi su'o loi"
leads to nonsense. {piroloi} does not mean "the whole of part of
the mass of".
> > > 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"
>
> Well, I am wrong but I don't think you are right even so. Let's
> unpack:
>
> lo du be no broda cu brode
> da poi du be no broda cu brode
> da du be no broda .ije da brode
> su'o da no de poi broda zo'u (tu'e da du de .ije da broda tu'u)
> su'o da naku su'o de poi broda zo'u (tu'e ... tu'u)
These are okay.
> Now since da = de, we can say:
Where does "da = de" come from?
> su'o da naku su'o da ..
>
> which is a flat contradiction. So "lo du be no broda" doesn't meant
> what you think it means, and and in fact doesn't mean anything
I have no idea how you reason to this conclusion.
lo du be no broda: Ex not Ey (y is broda & x=y)
lo du be ro broda: Ex Ay (not y is broda) or x=y
(I take it that it is clear that {lo mamta be no nanmu} means "someone
who is not mother of any man" and {lo mamta be ro nanmu} means
"someone who is mother of every man".)
--And.