[YG Conlang Archives] > [jboske group] > messages [Date Index] [Thread Index] >
On Sat, May 31, 2003 at 02:58:08PM -0400, Invent Yourself wrote:
> On Sat, 31 May 2003, Jordan DeLong wrote:
> > On Sat, May 31, 2003 at 02:35:39PM -0400, Invent Yourself wrote:
[...]
> > > Well, I'm only quoting chapter and verse concerning the existence of
> > > events. But I don't see how it could be any other way, if you want to be
> > > able to speak about hypothetical and future events. And we do have da'i to
> > > make the differentiation, which is usually understood anyway.
> >
> > No, you're quoting Cowan.
> >
> > I doesn't say that events always exist anywhere in CLL.
> >
> > > If we aren't allowed to discuss imaginary events, how can we write any
> > > fiction stories? Even a scientific paper would be impossible. So would
> > > computer source code -- here you are discussing operations on data
> > > structures that don't yet exist in memory at the time when the source is
> > > being written.
> >
> > Using other gadri than ones which demand existence, of course...
>
> What does lo da'i broda mean to you?
That the speaker is feeling the effects of problems in the gadri
system, and trying to hack around it.
[...]
> > > "nitcu" might refer to the 'shape of the receptor'. It might be phrased
> > > "something that I refer to as an 'X' would satisfy me", not really making
> > > any requirement that any X actually exists.
> >
> > But it can't be up to nitcu because of the way terms work.
> >
> > If I have <term> <term> selbri <term> <term>, the way a term is
> > interpreted cannot depend on the selbri. If one of the terms is
> > "lenu mi klama le zarci", it means the known (and real) event of
> > me going to the store, no matter what the selbri is.
>
> Where does it say that sumti are completely context-resistant?
It doesn't say that they depend on the selbri, and certain gadri
are given specific defitions which wouldn't make sense to try to
tie to the selbri.
> If UI can affect the truth value of a statement, I think brivla would be
> able to as well.
Well of course they affect the truth value. {mi remna} is a different
truth value than {mi ca'o se citka lo barda tricu}.
So... Maybe you misunderstand me?
> In any case, it seems that "nitcu le da'icu'i broda" should satisfy the
> sticklers. Like krici referring to the mental state of the lo krici, nitcu
> should likewise refer to the state of the lo nitcu, and not be interpreted
> to make any claims about the lo selnitcu.
Well, that is how it works in english, so I can understand why you
would favor it (I recognize that the "sapirworfists" or whatever
you call yourselves do tend to be pretty natlang-centric and try
to avoid doing things in unusual ways).
However, to fit with the definition of things like lo, that just
doesn't make sense. {da poi cinri zo'u mi nitcu da} cannot be
consistently taken to not imply existence of the da---that's the
whole definition of da. So it extends to lo based on rules in
chapter 16. Le follows just as a rational extension, since it
describes something which exists (if you take le broda as da voi
broda, for example).
--
Jordan DeLong - fracture@hidden.email
lu zo'o loi censa bakni cu terzba le zaltapla poi xagrai li'u
sei la mark. tuen. cusku
Attachment:
binj6ZyYL4w30.bin
Description: application/ygp-stripped