[YG Conlang Archives] > [jboske group] > messages [Date Index] [Thread Index] >
xod:
> 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
I don't agree. For one thing, a refusal to quantify could in certain
contexts be interpreted as an invitation to glork the appropriate
quantifier, in the sense that in certain contexts a speaker who says
{zi'o catra ko'a} may be interpreted as communicating {zo'e catra
zi'o}. But secondly and more importantly, what grounds are there for
saying that there is exactly one du'u broda? Do we know what criteria
we can use to tell that there is one and not two? No, we don't. If
one is the only conceivable number, then we don't really know that
we are looking at one. It is something that simply can't be counted.
Hence the validity of tu'o.
> 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.)
If you did check CLL you'd see it unequivocally supports only "no number".
I think we all agree that (a) we want a way to say "any number",
(b) we want a way to say "no number", and (c) BF should specify
the Right ways & rule on the meaning of {tu'o}.
> 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
Can you think of cases where some number other than pa is the only
conceivable number? I can't. And so I can't see how "is the only
conceivable number" differs from "no number".
--And.