[YG Conlang Archives] > [jboske group] > messages [Date Index] [Thread Index] >
la and cusku di'e
No, hang on. Here's the idea: Collective: LAhE-collective mo'ezi'olo'i broda Kind: LAhE-kind mo'ezi'olo'i broda where LAhE-collective/kind are transparent. IOW, where LAhE is used instead of a new gadrow, the LAhE is transparent and takes mo'ezi'olV'i as its argument.
With a singular argument, the question of transparency becomes
less important: there are no quantifiers to block.
[BTW, I think {mo'ezi'o} can't be used directly in a
quantifier position, you need {veimo'ezi'o}.]
Even this wouldn't work if lV'i is extensionally defined, as John thinks it is.
Right, at least for "kind". For "collective" it shouldn't matter one way or the other.
All of which just makes me yet more fed up with SL and the current debate. We have got the point where we have to start making decisions, either for SL via BF, or for AL. Currently, everything is sinking into a quicksand of indeterminacy, and all we have achieved is showing that virtually every conceivable issue is shrouded in uncertainty due to the incompleteness of the current prescription.
That's not a minor achievement! We need to recognize that before we can attempt to give a better prescription. mu'o mi'e xorxes _________________________________________________________________Help STOP SPAM: Try the new MSN 8 and get 2 months FREE* http://join.msn.com/?page=features/junkmail