[YG Conlang Archives] > [jboske group] > messages [Date Index] [Thread Index] >
xorxes:
> la and cusku di'e
>
> > > 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
>
> Would you give any meaning to {lu'o ko'a a ko'e a ko'i}?
Yes. Sumti logical connectives are a syntactic abbreviation for
something else in logical form (either logically connected
bridi or else "su'o/ro cmima be X ce Y"). So the meaning would
be analogous to {broda ko'a a ko'e a ko'i}.
> You're saying that {lu'o Q le broda} is always {lu'o ro le broda}
> no matter what Q is. Q becomes a cardinality indicator in this
> position, right?
I think the consequence of my position is that {lu'o Q le broda}
must always be {Q le broda ku goi ko'a zo'u lu'o ko'a}, analagous
to {broda Q le broda}.
> >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
>
> The syntax of a brivla would be different than what I'm proposing,
> though. {LE se cmima be ro broda} is a set that contains every
> broda, but it may also contain other things. {lo'i ro broda} is
> the set that contains exactly every broda. The same would apply
> to masses
Okay, but {lu'i} as a brivla would not mean "contains" but rather
"contains nothing but".
> > > 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)
>
> I'm not sure why what you propose would be more faithful to the
> syntax. Our interpretations agree when there are no quantifiers
> inside the LAhE. Your interpretation changes the meaning of
> the outer quantifiers into something like the meaning of inner
> quantifiers
My idea is that if Fxy always yields a unique y for a given x,
then y can be referred to by means of {Fx} rather than {gadri/PA
F be x}, since the gadri is redundant. The requisite syntax
for {Fx} referring to y would be that of LAhE.
--And.