[YG Conlang Archives] > [jboske group] > messages [Date Index] [Thread Index] >
la and cusku di'e
The bit that went over my head was "names are quantifiers". The rest I didn'tunderstand, but not for a lack of a vague handle on the terminology. --And.
My guess is that he meant to write "names are quantified". mu'o mi'e xorxes
>>> lojbab@hidden.email 01/08/03 03:44pm >>> At 05:09 AM 1/8/03 +0000, And Rosta wrote: >some more responses to pc's other comments: >> > >The bit about a name having to have a property to be used comes from the > > >fact that names are quantifiers (this cuts the grammar size roughly in> > >half, eliminating a vast array of duplicates) and quantifiers are all> > >restricted (second order relations between sets). Taking the properties > > >to be a haeceity was a mistake I remember arguing with (probably) Gaifman> > >back when I was studying to be a Nyayika and so a believer in> > >visheshas. Even without vishesha, using this as haeceity seems to me a > > >bad idea, since it makes transworld comparisons (ctfs like "If Socrates > > >were a Seventeenth century Irish washerwoman") impossible to deal with> > >naturally
_________________________________________________________________MSN 8 with e-mail virus protection service: 2 months FREE* http://join.msn.com/?page=features/virus