[YG Conlang Archives] > [jboske group] > messages [Date Index] [Thread Index] >
On Mon, Dec 30, 2002 at 11:34:13AM -0500, Invent Yourself wrote:
> On Mon, 30 Dec 2002, Jordan DeLong wrote:
> > On Sun, Dec 29, 2002 at 05:27:17PM -0500, Invent Yourself wrote:
> > > On Sun, 29 Dec 2002, John Cowan wrote:
> > > > Invent Yourself scripsit:
> > > > > I say by not specifying what sort of doctor he needs, or even indicating
> > > > > that there are unspoken in-mind restriction conditions, he is asking for
> > > > > any doctor.
> > > >
> > > > You might as well say that "lo xirma cu blabi" means "Any horse is white".
> > > > It doesn't and that's that.
> > >
> > > One might interpret this as "There is at least 1 horse that's white", the
> >
> > That is the proper interpretation.
> >
> > Remember lo xirma == da poi xirma.
> >
> > > sort of statement one might make after observing a white horse. But after
> > > observing one, the speaker has that white horse in mind, and should use
> > > "le", not "lo". So I'm still waiting for a refutation of my idea that
> > > {-specific} ranges over the whole set, can refer to any member of the set,
> > > and in this case translates close to this English sense of "any". (There
> > > could be some other sense of "any" that's causing grief.)
> >
> > Right, but let's say you've seen a bunch of horses. Some white,
> > some black, some purple with pink polka dots. Then someone claims
> > there's no such thing as white horses
> > no xirma cu blabi
> > and you feel compelled to defend that there are some
> > .i je'u lo xirma cu blabi
> > "le" would be incorrect---the listener would respond with "le ki'a
> > xirma" (what horse?).
>
>
> What horse? Why, the white horse that the speaker saw, has in mind, and is
> directly referring to. "le xirma cu blabi": the horses I have in mind are
> white. How one could refute "no xirma cu blabi" without having at least
> one white horse in mind is difficult to imagine.
No you missed the senario: You've seen dozens of white horses.
You don't even remember where you saw them or anything about them.
The person talking to you is making claims about the membership of
lo'i xirma, so talking about "le xirma" is incorrect.
Or even better, maybe, like me, you may or may not have seen white
horses in person, you can't remember. But you know that white
horses exist.
> But if you say "lo xirma cu blabi" because that's the best claim you can
> make, then you don't know which ones are white, and any of them could be.
Rather, you know that some are white.
> > (You could also say "loi xirma cu blabi" for
> > this btw, but that's neither here nor there).
> >
> > It definitely doesn't do "any".
>
> I cannot see any difference in meaning yet between "I need a doctor", "I
> need any doctor" and "mi nitcu 1 mikce". The applicable set of doctors and
> lo mikce is the same.
"mi nitcu 1 mikce" == "There is a single doctor that I need".
In English, I just say "I need a doctor" for the "any" sense. It's
still a different thing though.
There's also the point that the "lo" stuff claims such a doctor
exists that can satisfy your needs.
--
Jordan DeLong - fracture@hidden.email
lu zo'o loi censa bakni cu terzba le zaltapla poi xagrai li'u
sei la mark. tuen. cusku
Attachment:
binqaSrj7UoUT.bin
Description: application/ygp-stripped