[YG Conlang Archives] > [jboske group] > messages [Date Index] [Thread Index] >
*** cu'u la .and. Lojbab: #At 05:09 AM 1/8/03 +0000, And Rosta wrote: #> > >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 don't know what you mean by canonical. If you mean that CLL says that #tu'o and mo'ezi'o are identical in meaning, can I trouble you for a cite, #because I certainly don't see it. Indeed zi'o is never discussed in #interaction with anything else. In the mekso chapter, tu'o is introduced as an operand that turns a binary operator into a unary one -- i.e. it is the operand counterpart of the sumti zi'o. #It is plausible that the only uses of tu'o in CLL could be replaced by #mo'ezi'o, but even that is arguable since there is no formal definition of #the combination mo'ezi'o - it must be inferred. That tu'o = mo'ezi'o can be deduced, since we know from CLL what each of tu'o, mo'e and zi'o mean. #But in addition, lack of other examples is not a definition. If retu'o, "twentysomething", existed in CLL then tu'o would be contradictorily defined. I think it is therefore legitimate to deduce that retu'o cannot mean "twentysomething". ***I mean, we could define {re} as meaning 6006 when quantifying unicorns and 2 otherwise; there's nothing in CLL preventing that, either. But that is disgusting, and malicious. Bob wanted {retu'o} to mean twenties. If Bob had put it in CLL, we'd have a mess to clean up, and it would not have survived the cleanup. But because Bob didn't put {retu'o} into CLL, why should I now accept that tu'o = both mo'ezi'o and mo'ezo'e?
Only that which CLL uses is defined. CLL uses tu'o as mo'ezi'o and does not use zi'o as mo'ezo'e or mo'e lo grutraktinidio . Therefore only mo'ezi'o is a canonical use of tu'o. Founder hunches and intent are irrelevant to canonicity. If I allow you to define tu'o as mo'ezo'e, I also allow you to define tu'o as mo'e lo grutraktinidio, and I will not.
The BPFK (if I ever get it started) considers what gets added to the CLL prescription. Founder intent is of interest, but is not decisive, and is assuredly not canonical. tu'o = mo'ezo'e is not in the CLL prescription. And I for one don't want it there either.
-- **** **** **** **** **** **** **** **** **** **** **** **** **** **** **** * Dr Nick Nicholas, French & Italian Studies nickn@hidden.email * University of Melbourne, Australia http://www.opoudjis.net * "Eschewing obfuscatory verbosity of locutional rendering, the * circumscriptional appelations are excised." --- W. Mann & S. Thompson, * _Rhetorical Structure Theory: A Theory of Text Organisation_, 1987. * **** **** **** **** **** **** **** **** **** **** **** **** **** **** ****