[YG Conlang Archives] > [jboske group] > messages [Date Index] [Thread Index] >
Robert LeChevalier scripsit: > Not a meaningful question for some of these, as there is no grammatical > form "mu li tu'o". In fact this is grammatical (see sumti_F_97), but it's nonsense because there is only one instance of any number. > For le'i and lo'i it is a meaningful question, which is > determined by examining all potential usages of the form "PA le'i broda" to > see which one occurs most often, CLL says that the outer quantifier of a set refers to a subset, so the default is piro (the whole set) for both lo'i and le'i. If we want to talk about multiple sets with le'i, we have to use LAhEs, I think. > If John is right and we can use set descriptions for collections, I am by no means sure this is right any more: Nick's (?) example about burning a deck of cards is suggestive, though not completely persuasive. This may in fact be a mass example: I would say that the deck is burned when, say 90% of each card is burned *or* when 90% of all cards are burned. > The value for the inner quantifier depends on how you want statements about > different forms of the empty set to be interpreted - thus probably either > su'o or su'ono or ro. su'o for le'i, ro for lo'i, per CLL 6.7. > A faster-than-light spaceship is not the same as a purple unicorn, so the > quantifier on "lo" must exclude the empty set. The set of > faster-than-light spaceships is logically the same as the set of purple > unicorns, but I am not sure if it is pragmatically the same. The *sets* are the same, but the *property* (ka) of being a u. is not the same as the property of being a ftl-s. -- He made the Legislature meet at one-horse John Cowan tank-towns out in the alfalfa belt, so that jcowan@hidden.email hardly nobody could get there and most of http://www.reutershealth.com the leaders would stay home and let him go http://www.ccil.org/~cowan to work and do things as he pleased. --Mencken, _Declaration of Independence_