[YG Conlang Archives] > [jboske group] > messages [Date Index] [Thread Index] >
John:
> And Rosta scripsit:
>
> > 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
>
> I don't understand how you cannot count what is not individuated. The
> question "How many clouds are in buttermilk sky X?" has no answer (na'i),
> because clouds are not in that situation individuable
> (For anyone who doesn't know what a buttermilk sky is, see:
> http://www.cloudman.com/gallery1/photos/160.jpg)
>
> > 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 hold that "lo blanu" = "da poi blanu" does coerce a countable
> interpretation, though "lo bende" does not, by reason of its special
> properties
We agree, I take it, that the truthconditions of {da poi broda cu
brode} and {da ge broda gi brode} are the same. So if {da djacu}
doesn't mean "da is a single water" then nor does {da poi djacu}.
Next step. Do
re da djacu
re da poi djacu
force the interpretation "two waters"? No, I answer. They mean
"There are at least two things, such that for each is is
the case that da djacu".
To take a concrete example, "mi cilre re da poi papri" --
"I read two things, each thing is paper".
If you retort that "papri" means "is a single paper" -- a
countable quantity of paper, I will ask why or whether the same
doesn't apply to blanu, such that {da blanu} means "is a single
blue-er".
--And.