[YG Conlang Archives] > [jboske group] > messages [Date Index] [Thread Index] >
Jordan:
> On Tue, Jan 07, 2003 at 08:49:36PM -0000, And Rosta wrote:
> > Jordan:
> > > 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)
> >
> > "(su'o) lo broda" refers to things individuated by virtue of
> > being a single (countable) broda. "(su'o) da poi broda" and
> > "(su'o) da broda" refers to things individuated somehow, but
> > not necessarily by virtue of being a single countable broda
>
> But, as I said, I don't think "(su'o) da broda" has any relevance
> to whether "(su'o) lo broda" and "(su'o) da poi broda" have the
> same meaning. So I still don't understand your complaint
In {da poi ke'a/da broda}, the truthconditions for {ke'a/da broda}
should be the same as for "(su'o) da broda" -- that is, the properties
that da must have should be the same regardless of whether it
is inside a relative clause or not.
--And.