[YG Conlang Archives] > [jboske group] > messages [Date Index] [Thread Index] >
Jordan:
> On Wed, Jan 08, 2003 at 05:24:19AM -0000, And Rosta wrote:
> > Jordan:
> > > On Tue, Jan 07, 2003 at 08:49:36PM -0000, And Rosta wrote:
> > > > "(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
>
> Ahh ok, I see
>
> So yes, but "da broda" requires the referent of "da" to be a single
> individual broda in addition to whatever other types of single
> individual it is, which is the same as "lo broda", I think
On the one hand that was half of the intention, I think, with
noncountability being done by massing together all the single
broda and then taking arbitrary piPA fractions of it. But on
the other hand, I really don't think that "ti blanu" has ever
meant to anybody "this is a single blue thing", "this is a blanu
selci", "x has the property of being blue in a way such that
having the property makes x countable".
--And.