[YG Conlang Archives] > [jboske group] > messages [Date Index] [Thread Index] >
On Thu, 9 Jan 2003, Robert LeChevalier wrote: > http://groups.yahoo.com/group/lojban/message/10519) Thereafter, the three > of them often use "tu'odu'u" and "tu'oka". Adam also recognizes and uses > tu'odu'u. xod seems resistant. Yeah. And Lojbab is right. We are arguing over tu'o = "elliptical, any number" vs. "vacuous, no number". But the "no number" interpretation isn't appropriate for du'u. I still claim what's wanted for du'u is "one is the only conceivable number here", which should be clear from the context (the fact that it's a du'u) and elided away. The ma'oste uses the unfortunate, confusing phrase "null operand", but explains it further with "elliptical number", which means "any number" and doesn't really leave any reasonable interpretation of "no number". And usage supported that unanimously before the doubly-erroneous "no number" usage for du'u was introduced. But it would be nice if we had such a cmavo for "no number" (for substances), so we should create one and stop abusing poor tu'o. (I can't check the CLL on tu'o, since lojban.org is down.) Or we could create a cmavo for "is the only conceivable number", use that alone for "no number", and annoy me by appending it to pa to denote the quantification of du'u. -- // if (!terrorist) // ignore (); // else collect_data ();