[YG Conlang Archives] > [jboske group] > messages [Date Index] [Thread Index] >
la and cusku di'e
> 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}.
{broda ko'a a ko'e a ko'i} is just {broda ko'a ija broda ko'e
ija broda ko'i}.
Would you have {lu'o ko'a a ko'e a ko'i} expanding to
{lu'o ko'a lu'u a lu'o ko'e lu'u a lu'o ko'i}? If so, then
{lu'o su'o da} should be {su'o da zo'u ... lu'o da}, but this
is different from {lu'o ro da}.
I'm not clear what analogous meaning you have in mind.
> 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 that case, {lu'o le ci gerku} is not the mass of the three dogs,
but each of the three masses of one dog. LAhEs lose much of their
reason of being if they are transparent to quantifiers.
> 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".
How would you use such a brivla, what goes in x2? Suppose
{rolvasru} means "x1 contains nothing but x2". Saying
{le tanxe cu rolvasru re cukta} is nonsense, because it
means that there are exactly two books such that each of
them is the only thing contained in the box. The proper
way of saying it would be {le tanxe cu rolvasru lei re cukta}
if we refer to the two books specuifically. How do we do it
nonspecifically? {le tanxe cu rolvasru lo'u re cukta}, the
box contains nothing but two-books-as-a-whole. But if
{lo'u re cukta} must be split into {re da poi cukta zo'u
le tanxe cu rolvasru lo'u da}, we are making again a
nonsensical claim.
> 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.
That still works like that with my interpretation. What we are disagreeing about is on how to handle the notationally odd F(Qx). You want it to be just a variation of Qx:...Fx... I want to give it a more complex but I think more useful meaning. But we are not disagreeing about the basic unquantified Fx. How do you propose to say "a mass of two books (only)"? mu'o mi'e xorxes _________________________________________________________________Add photos to your e-mail with MSN 8. Get 2 months FREE*. http://join.msn.com/?page=features/featuredemail