[YG Conlang Archives] > [jboske group] > messages [Date Index] [Thread Index] >
Robert LeChevalier scripsit:
>
> At 09:31 PM 1/11/03 +0000, And Rosta wrote:
> >John and Jordan disagree about what {ro} should mean, not about which
> >philosophy determines their truths. Can we have metalinguistic statements
> >that tell us which set of word--meaning correspondences we are using
> >-- which dictionary the hearer should consult?
>
> Why not?
>
> >If so, I suggest a
> >cmavo in COI, "COI brod", where "brod" names the dictionary. But then
> >people will want the official dictionary to list only one meaning, and
> >John and Jordan will disagree about which should be listed for ro.
>
> Approach 1
> There is only one meaning for ro, with existential import being a
> manifestation of the (whatever branch of philosophy applies - metaphysics,
> ontology, semantics, etc.). The dictionary would thus say that ro has
> existential import in an X context, doesn't have existential import in a Y
> context, and existential import implies Z in terms of added meanings. X
> and Y are markable; the default is not specified (and as with tense, optional)
>
> Approach 2
> Split into two words. The one that gets ro is the one that is most likely
> to see usage. If this cannot be decided based on intuition, there may
> actually have been enough usage of a word as common as "ro" for usage to
> give an indication.
If "ro" is taken to lack import, then "rosu'o" has import.
If "ro" is taken to have import, however, I don't see an obvious PA
compound that lacks import. If someone else does, speak up.
Failing that, I can allow "ro (da poi) broda" to lack import and use
"rosu'o" for Aristotle's A.
--
John Cowan jcowan@hidden.email www.ccil.org/~cowan www.reutershealth.com
"If he has seen farther than others,
it is because he is standing on a stack of dwarves."
--Mike Champion, describing Tim Berners-Lee (adapted)