[YG Conlang Archives] > [jboske group] > messages [Date Index] [Thread Index] >
Back from my enforced email deprivation I am delighted to find
that my absence seems to have quietened the list!
[Meta-lojbo anecdote: in a state of flusterment at having to
communicate only in German and Italian, I spent New Year's
Eve addressing Albert and Angelica as Avgust and Angela. It
took me a day or two to work out why.]
xorxes:
> la and cusku di'e
>
> >xorxes�
> > >To do two groups of people we could use {re lu'o lo prenu}
> > >two masses, each of which consists of at least one person
> > >This depends on how LAhEs work though, something that BF will
> > >have to clarify
> >
> >& pe#i LAhE shd not work thus & that "re lu#o lo prenu" is as
> >nonsensical as "two square=roots of 37"
>
> But the su'o quantifier of {lo prenu} is inside the
> scope of {lu'o}
>
> {lu'o ko'a e ko'e e ko'i} is the mass that has ko'a,
> ko'e and ko'i as its components: {lu'o ro le ci broda}
> There is only one such mass, so I agree that in this
> case it makes no sense to add a quantifier
>
> But {lu'o ko'a a ko'e a ko'i} is a mass that has at
> least one of ko'a, ko'e and ko'i as components:
> {lu'o su'o le ci broda}. There are seven such masses,
> namely:
>
> lu'o ko'a
> lu'o ko'e
> lu'o ko'i
> lu'o ko'a e ko'e
> lu'o ko'a e ko'i
> lu'o ko'e e ko'i
> lu'o ko'a e ko'e e ko'i
>
> In this case, it does make sense to quantify over these
> masses. {re lu'o su'o le ci broda} would be two of the
> above masses. How else could that {su'o} be interpreted?
The mass of each of (the) su'o things.
In a reversal of what I formerly thought, I'm not sure that
LAhE is sensitive to scope, if it truly expresses a function.
Perhaps it doesn't truly express a function, but its syntax
suggests that it should, and if it didn't, then its appropriate
syntax would be that of a brivla. I can understand why you
would want to reject this argument, since it leaves us
without a way to express cases where several things all
map to the same LAhE.
> Another case: {lu'o re le ci broda}, a mass of two of the
> three broda. There are three of those, so I would
> interpret {ro lu'o re le ci broda} as something like:
>
> ro da poi re de poi cmima lei ci broda zo'u de cmima ke'a
I see the sense of your view. Basically it comes down to
a question of what is utile (you) or what is more faithful
to the syntax (me).
--And.