[YG Conlang Archives] > [jboske group] > messages [Date Index] [Thread Index] >
another quick reply to nick:
> --- In jboske@yahoogroups.com, "Jorge Llambias" <jjllambias@h...> wrote:
> > >We are not, however, supplying an overt outer quantifier; so we are not
> > >saying just how many such subcollectives broda holds of (other than
> > >it's not zero.)
> >
> > That's an implicit {su'o}, isn't it?
>
> Yes. And this is actually the crucial difference I'd missed. Mr Human has
> avatars in this world, Mr Hobbit does not. loi broda refers only to
> thinks with
> 'Manifestations' in the real world
I didn't grasp your reason why this should be so.
> > >And the outer quantifier could also be... tu'o: the non-quantifier
> > >corresponding to 'any' in English.
> > Then you're saying that {fi'u ro loi broda} is ambiguous
> > between "at least one fraction of broda" and
> > "Mr Fraction of Broda"
>
> Yes. Or rather, Mr Fraction of Broda-In-This-World
Again, I'm not sure of what meaning you have in mind and what you
are contrasting it with.
> > >Under this interpretation, there isn't necessarily anything to go to a
> > >prenex when you see pimu loi or fi'u ro loi. In (1), what would have to
> > >go to a prenex as an overt outer quantifier is pa da. In (2), it is ro
> > >da. In (3), nothing goes to the (outermost, extensional) prenex at all:
> > >it is tu'o da
>
> > Now you seem to be saying that it is not ambiguous, but it
> > is always intensional, so that {pa fi'u ro loi broda} =
> > {tu'o lo broda}, is that right?
>
> Not quite. Mr Broda-In-This-World subsumes any avatar of Broda in this
> World, but not beyond. You go beyond only in intensional contexts.
Ah, I see. When broda is singularity, this is equivalent to my
Manifestation. But when broda is countable, the Manifestation would
give a collective, which is not what you mean. I'm not sure how
you reason that loi gives Mr Broda In This World. Certainly I
don't see that Mr Broda In This World is a necessary concept, though
it is not an impossible one: if Mr Broda exists in many worlds
but you eat him in this world, it follows that you eat his avatar
in this world.
> So: I eat half an apple: there exists an apple half such that I eat it
> I want half an apple: I want any of the apples halves (in this
> world): I want Mr
> Apple Half In This World
You don't need "In This World", since the purposes for which you want
Mr Apple Half are in this world. I'm assuming you want to eat him;
If you want to draw him, then he needn't be in this world, of course.
> I draw half an apple: I draw a particular half of Mr Apple (I think)
Mr Apple Half, or lo half of Mr Apple, or le half of Mr Apple.
--And.