[YG Conlang Archives] > [jboske group] > messages [Date Index] [Thread Index] >
On Thu, 9 Jan 2003, And Rosta wrote:
> Nick:
> > lo remna is an individual of humanity
>
> Can I suggest we follow a practise of putting prescribed-default
> quantifiers in () and inserting all quantifiers that would have
> to be glorked if omitted. That would help me tell whether you
> mean {lo remna} is an individual of humanity or {pa lo ro remna}
> (or even {pa lo pa remna}) is an indiv of humanity.
>
> > lo rismi is an individual quantity of the mass of rice:
> > = lo pisu'o loi tu'o rismi
> >
> > remna is being treated as inherently-individual
> > rismi is being treated as inherently-substance
> [...]
> > If this is heading towards saying that loi djacu and lo djacu are
> > both potential referents of da poi djacu, and *that* is why lo djacu
> > != da poi djacu, then I guess I can live with that. The metalanguage
> > of CLL is still stuck in an atomist universe, isn't it?
>
> I had never assumed it was stuck in an atomist universe.
>
> > ----
> >
> > Now I don't know who I'm disagreeing with...
>
> You and I seem to be converging.
>
> We roughly agree that inner ro forces a countable interpretation and that
> inner tu'o forces an uncountable interpretation.
> We agree that this potentially makes the lo/loi contrast redundant,
> but we don't yet agree on how to reconcile this with the fact that
> SL wants to use lo/loi to mark countability.
Use loi to mark collectivity then, a distinction which has nothing or
little to do with quantification. It's nobody's problem that certain
grammatically-possible quantifier permutations become meaningless with loi
when loi is interpreted as collective only.
--
// if (!terrorist)
// ignore ();
// else
collect_data ();