[YG Conlang Archives] > [jboske group] > messages [Date Index] [Thread Index] >
Lojbab:
> At 10:19 PM 1/5/03 +0000, And Rosta wrote:
> >The following facts are incompatible:
> >{lo blanu} means "da poi is-a-countable-blue-thing"
> >{ti blanu} means "this is blue", not "this is-a-countable-blue-thing"
>
> Beating Nora to the punch, we can argue about gadri all you want, but when
> you turn to predicates themselves, you need to also be considering the
> verbal reading. Thus
> {lo blanu} means "da such that [it/they] blue[s]" (meaning that
> countability disappears as an issue)
> {ti blanu} means "this blues", not "this is-a-countable-blue-thing"
You are right about {ti blanu}, but officially {lo blanu} means
"da such that it is a countable blue thing", not "da such that it
blues". Countability does not disappear as an issue, because countability
is part of the official meaning of {lo}.
> Now if pa blanu = pa lo blanu = pa da poi blanu = "one thing such that it
> blues" you have implied countability to the extent that "one" is meaningful
> as a quantifier.
Right, but in "re da blanu", the countability is not necessarily related
to the blueness. In "re blanu", the coutnability is related to the
blueness -- it requires us to conceive of some kind of countable
blueness (e.g. tubes of blue paint). Officially, "re da poi blanu"
is said to be equivalent to "re blanu", but I think that should be
scrapped, and it should instead work like "re da blanu".
> But until you have an explicit quantifier, you don't
> necessarily have countability implied
Untrue. Implicit or explicit {lo} ({PA broda}, {lo broda}) encodes
countability. That is prescribed as part of the meaning of {lo}.
--And.