[YG Conlang Archives] > [jboske group] > messages [Date Index] [Thread Index] >
xorxes:
> 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
I guess so. Yes -- I was forgetting goatleg: su'o would be
better.
> >{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
Yes.
> >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"
I've had a rethink due to your comments, and summarized as XS4.1
in another message.
> >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
Q1 LAhE Q2 LE would work in these cases only if Q2 has scope
over Q1. See posting on XS4.1.
I have had a think about sets and see no reason to distinguish
them from {lo-kind su'onomei}. That is, a set is a subkind of
Mr Collective.
> >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".)
Okay. See XS4.1.
> >#> 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)
Yes.
--And.