[YG Conlang Archives] > [jboske group] > messages [Date Index] [Thread Index] >
Nick:
> Every time I hear of an Excellent Solution, I reach for my gun. :-)
>
> cu'u la .and
>
> >The following facts are incompatible:
> >{lo blanu} means "da poi is-a-countable-blue-thing".<BR>
> >{ti blanu} means "this is blue", not "this is-a-countable-blue-thing".<BR>
>
> How do you figure?
Various reasons, which I won't list, because you endorse below
what I meant.
> If {ti} denotes only countables, than {ti blanu} does indeed mean
> "this is-a-countable-blue-thing"
>
> If {ti} can also denote non-countables (and surely that is so), then
> it is merely ambiguous
>
> {lo blanu} = {da poi "is-a-countable-blue-thing"}. Of these
> components, the 'countable' comes from {lo}, and the 'blue' from
> {blanu}
> {pisu'o loi blanu} = {da poi "is-a-non-countable-blue-thing"}
> Clearly, the denotation of {blanu} itself includes both countables
> and non-countables; it is +/- countable
>
> {ti} likewise includes in its potential denotation both countables
> and non-countables
>
> So in the absence of a gadri indicating countability, {ti blanu} is
> unspecified as to countability. Where is the problem?
{lo blanu} isn't synonymous with {da poi blanu}. The former
is countable, the latter is unspecified for countability.
> Sure our usual metalanguage speaks only of da as individuals. But
> that is untenable: da must also be able to refer to masses, sets, and
> whatever else might come up
>
> Of your alternatives (can't cut and paste from browser for some reason):
>
> "this is blue" = {ti du pisu'o loi blanu}? Wholly unnecessary
>
> Scrap lo = da poi? Also verboten. But note that if da encompasses
> both individuals and masses, then both lo = da poi and loi = da poi,
> and you need an extra predicate to differentiate between the two
> (zi'e poi selci, zi'e poi gunma)
You yourself are here scrapping lo broda = da poi broda, on the
grounds of it being inconsistent with other CLL stuff.
--And.