[YG Conlang Archives] > [jboske group] > messages [Date Index] [Thread Index] >
John:
>And Rosta scripsit:
>
>> "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".
>
>Ah, I see now.
>
>> 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".
>
>Well, if you are married to compositional semantics, yes. To me,
>this is like inferring that since {stone lion} means "stone lion",
>that {lion} must mean "something that is either a lion or a sculpture
>shaped like a lion", which is perverse. Fleshliness is part of the
>sense of "lion", and {lion} just means "lion". When combined with "stone",
>the property of being made of flesh is overridden.
>
>Analogously, being quantified "part of" is an overrideable property of "loi".
Yes, I would like the gadri and other logical portions of the language to
have compositional semantics.
Whether a "stone lion" (in Lojban) can §truly§ be a lion is a matter of
debate & takes us into the realm of prototzpe semantics. If "stone lion"
were a lujvo rather than a tanru then I'd have no problem, bcs I don't
think lujvo need be compositional.
Regardless of the above, though, a compositional analzsis is usuallz
simpler than a noncompositional one.
>> > 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?
>
>Why, it says right there "da du de".
In "su'o da no de poi broda zo'u (tu'e da du de .ije da broda tu'u)"?
> If da is de, then we can replace
>de by da salva veritate:
>
> [su'o] da [su'o] de zo'u da du de .ije da broda
> [suo] da zo'u da broda
> da broda
>
>Ooops, I see what I did wrong: da du de is inside the negation.
>
>You are right and I am wrong.
Phew.
--And.
When words aren't enough - Vodafone live! A new world of colour, sounds, picture messages and information on your mobile. <a href="http://ad.doubleclick.net/clk;4909903;7724245;q?http://www.vodafone.co.uk/live";>
Click here</a> to find out more.