[YG Conlang Archives] > [jboske group] > messages [Date Index] [Thread Index] >
At 12:58 AM 1/13/03 +0000, And Rosta wrote:
Lojbab:
> >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}
>
> I don't understand either an agentless killing of someone, or a agentive
> killing where no one is slain, so neither of these communicates
> anything to me
>
> "zi'o catra ko'a" != "ko'a mrobi'o"
Why not? Or at least, why would the former not be understood as
the latter?
It might be understood as the latter, but the former is claiming a catra relationship between a agent and a victim except that there is no agent. The latter claims that someone became dead, and implies no catra relationship.
> >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 > > As Cowan says in another post, the quantifier is a distinction without a > difference. It doesn't matter how many du'u broda there are since the > number of du'u broda has no relevance to anything Why would you want to claim that there is only one, then?
Why do you want to say mrobi'o as zi'o catra?Either there is no reason, or the reason has to do with some sort of personal mental process that generates that particular expression.
> > > The ma'oste uses the unfortunate, confusing phrase "null operand", > > It uses the keyword "null operand", a device used to render LogFlash > usable. It is NOT unfortunate that it was used; it is unfortunate that > people persist in reading more into the keywords than was ever > intended. We are writing a dictionary (and it wasn't written earlier) > precisely because the keywords were not considered a definition It is unfortunate that the prescription was left in this unsatisfactory state. It's unfortunate that such an inadequate prescription was all we had to go on for ten years.
Yes. But I made several attempts to get people to help me in defining the cmavo list better. Hopefully Nick will do better; he at least has volunteers.
> >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 > > I am not convinced that a/b are true, and that we will not open a can of > worms by trying for either of those meanings, especially since "number",> "operand", and "count/quantifier" are overlapping meanings and all words in> PA can serve in all roles > > I doubt that byfy needs to rule on what "pai broda" means It depends. Supposing the current state of discussion of the gadri system to be the final prescription, then one could deduce from that that "pai broda" would be meaningless. But I am confident you could find a way to argue that the deduction wasn't sanctioned by the prescription and was therefore invalid.
But someone may want to say"[pai -diameters of circle X] cu dunli [pa -circumference of circle X] [leni cu'e clani-when-conjoined]"
or something like that.I don't want to say it, and might find a better way to express the underlying idea id it wasn't 4AM, but I can certainly imagine someone trying it. (I hope it doesn't break someone's solution, and please don't ask me to come up with an example using ka'o as a quantifier %^)
lojbab -- lojbab lojbab@hidden.email Bob LeChevalier, President, The Logical Language Group, Inc. 2904 Beau Lane, Fairfax VA 22031-1303 USA 703-385-0273 Artificial language Loglan/Lojban: http://www.lojban.org