[YG Conlang Archives] > [jboske group] > messages [Date Index] [Thread Index] >
la and cusku di'e
8. {Q loi/lei/lai (N) broda = "Q instances of lo/le/la (N) broda".
Instances are extensional; a world with no unicorns contains no
instances of lo unicorn.
There is always a Q. The defaults are:
{(pa fi'u ro) loi/lei/lai broda}
{PA (fi'u ro) loi/lei/lai broda}
{(pa) fi'u PA loi/lei/lai broda}
Eventually {(su'o fi'u ro) loi/lei/lai} might be the default,
to be more compatible with SL.
{ro} = the total number of instances of lo/le/la broda that there are.
However, when N is {tu'o}, there can be no implicit outer quantifier
other than mo'ezi'o (= tu'o). {loi tu'o broda} = "the substance of
all broda". When there is an explicit outer quantifier, it quantifies
over arbitrarily delimited but equal bits of the substance of all
broda.
Also, when N is {ro}, there needn't be an implicit outer quantifier.
9. {Q lo'i/le'i/la'i (N) broda} = "Q members of lo/le/la N broda"
The members of lo/le/la broda are intensional. For example,
{lo ci -unicorn}, Mr Unicorn Trio, has three members, regardless
of whether the world contains any unicorns.
There is always a Q. The defaults are:
{(ro fi'u ro) lo'i/le'i/la'i broda}
{PA (fi'u ro) lo'i/le'i/la'i broda}
{(pa) fi'u PA lo'i/le'i/la'i broda}
I'm not convinced of this at all. I don't really have a use
for lo'i/le'i/la'i, so I'm not much opposed to redefining them,
but I don't really see the need for this. We can always use
{lu'a} for members of collective Kind {Q lu'a lo/le/la N broda},
and indeed we can also use it for members of collective instances:
{Q lu'a loi/lei/lai N broda}. My choice would be for {Q lo'i} to
quantify over sets. So {ci lo'i ze loi re mlatu} would be
"three sets, each containing seven pairs of cats as its members".
10. {lo'i Q lV/lVi/lV'i} = "the set containing Q lV/lVi/lV'i (as its
only members)".
{le'i Q lV/lVi/lV'i} = "the set containing a certain Q lV/lVi/lV'i
(as its only members)".
There is no implicit outer quantifier. IOW, the implicit outer
quantifier is mo'ezi'o. There can be an explicit outer quantifier:
{Q1 lo'i/le'i Q2 lV/lVi/lV'i} = "Q1 members of the set containing a certain
Q2 lV/lVi/lV'i (as its only members)".
The defaults for Q1 are the same as given under (9).
Again, I would prefer the outer quantifier to quantify over
sets rather than members. Again we can use {lu'a} to get to
the members.
11. {loi Q lV/lVi/lV'i} = "the collective containing Q lV/lVi/lV'i",
"Q lV/lVi/lV'i, taken jointly". IOW, in {loi Q lV/lVi/lV'i broda
cu brode}, brodehood belongs to the group collectively rather than
distributively as it would in {Q lV/lVi/lV'i broda cu brode}.
{lei Q lV/lVi/lV'i} = "the collective containing a certain Q
lV/lVi/lV'i (as its only members)".
There is no implicit outer quantifier. IOW, the implicit outer
quantifier is mo'ezi'o. If there is an explicit outer quantifier,
then either it is meaningless or (by stipulation) it means the
same as {Q lo'i/le'i}.
Shouldn't the outer quantifier quantify over collectives?
For example, {loi ci loi re remna} are three pairs of people
taken together. Why couldn't {vo loi ci loi re remna} be
simply four groups consisting of three pairs each? That would
seem to be the simplest generalization. (Not that this will
ever get much use, but just to simplify the rules. {Q loi}
would always be "Q collectives of".)
#> 14. By stipulation, {piro (loi) broda} and {piso'e (loi) broda} imply
#> inner tu'o.
This is good. Otherwise {pi} would be pointless in front of
indefinite numbers.
So: {pisu'o remna}: some human stuff (could be a hand, for example).
mu'o mi'e xorxes
_________________________________________________________________
The new MSN 8: smart spam protection and 2 months FREE*
http://join.msn.com/?page=features/junkmail