[YG Conlang Archives] > [jboske group] > messages [Date Index] [Thread Index] >
John:
> And Rosta scripsit:
>
> > Does that mean you do think that {lo blanu} != {da poi blanu},
> > or that you think they do mean the same? (Please don't just
> > answer Yes! -- This is an alternatives question.)
>
> I think that lo blanu and da poi blanu mean the same thing: they refer
> to one or more (ergo countable) blue things. (Trivially, one binds da
> and one doesn't.)
John, I *wish* you wouldn't cut so much out when quoting in your
replies. The messages are flying so thick and fast that I can't
remember what you had said that I was replying to. Yes, I can
look it up in my archives, but that takes time, which I am
short of.
Here's the context:
> John:
> > And Rosta scripsit:
> >
> > > I think there must have been confusion about this at some time, though,
> > > because we have all that "is an amount of" in the gismu definitions,
> > > which is unnecessary but seems to imply that at some time the idea
> > > was that lo *does* force a countable interpretation on the predicate
> >
> > I think it does force individuality in all but a few cases where another
> > ontological type is given. And even there, loi or lo'i just wrap the
> > given type
> > in a mass or set respectively
>
> So do you accept that {lo blanu} does not mean the same as
> {da poi blanu}, then?
In reply to what you say above, "three things that are (made of)
water" are clearly being counted, but, unlike in "three waters",
they are not being individuated by virtue of each being a
single water.
So, if {lo blanu} = {da poi blanu} then lo does not coerce a
countable interpretation of blanu, even though lo refers to
a counted number of things.
I have no particular axe to grind here. I just want to get things
straight.
--And.