[YG Conlang Archives] > [jboske group] > messages [Date Index] [Thread Index] >
On Mon, Jan 06, 2003 at 06:07:19PM -0000, And Rosta wrote:
> John:
> > And Rosta scripsit:
> > > {lo blanu} isn't synonymous with {da poi blanu}. The former
> > > is countable, the latter is unspecified for countability
> >
> > I grant you (i) but I deny you (ii). "da poi blanu" means "su'o da poi
> > blanu", so it is countable
>
> What I mean is that the interpretation of blanu is unspecified
> for countability. IOW, even though su'oda means "at least one
> thing" (so is perforce being counted by some criterion or other),
> "poi blanu" is neutral between "is a single blue thing" and
> "is blue stuff".
How does lo not already require countability though? If discussing
whether "lo broda" == "su'o da poi broda", "ti broda" is completely
inconsequential. The only issue is the meaning of "lo"---"lo"
always has an outer quantifier (usually of su'o) and thus must imply
countability, just like "su'o da poi broda".
So what are you talking about?
As an aside, I think "da poi broda" is only valid as a paraphrase
of "lo broda", and not as an actual definition of its meaning,
because it leaves out the inner quantifier. (the "su'o da poi cmima
lo'i ro broda" version works as an exact definition though).
--
Jordan DeLong - fracture@hidden.email
lu zo'o loi censa bakni cu terzba le zaltapla poi xagrai li'u
sei la mark. tuen. cusku
Attachment:
binqgpUkq2pPV.bin
Description: application/ygp-stripped