[YG Conlang Archives] > [jboske group] > messages [Date Index] [Thread Index] >
Lojbab: > > > I think that tu'o is ambiguous between mo'ezo'e and mo'ezi'o in its > > > definition. In one grammatical context, that of a dummy argument in PN or > > > RPN, it seems clearly to be mo'ezi'o. When used as a digit variable in a > > > digit string such as retu'o for twenty-something, it is clearly mo'ezo'e > > > >I wasn't aware of the "retu'o" usage > > I'm not sure if it has been used, but it has been thought of, once we had > created tu'o for the other purpose If retu'o is not canonical then it is plainly wrong, seeing as the mo'ezi'o meaning of tu'o is canonical. > > > I define whether it is or is not quantified by whether the syntax allows > > > it. I am a pragmatist > > > >As you yourself often rightly say, not everything grammatical is > >meaningful. And assuming otherwise can be harmful, as in the present > >instance (e.g. it being so hard to refer to the number 2) > > li re = "each of the one thing that is the number 2", according to John. Essentially, SL's logic as shaped by John, who waxes meticulous, consistent, conservative and miserly, has nothing but quantifiers and predicates: there are no sumti that name anything directly. I can respect that position, but I don't like it being forced on me, and I would like to be able to point directly to things like numbers, propositions, properties, kinds, and so forth. (-- things that are noncontingently unique). --And.