[YG Conlang Archives] > [jboske group] > messages [Date Index] [Thread Index] >

[Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next]

Re: [jboske] lo = da poi? Re: events which don't exist do, because our gadri don't do what we need (was Re:"x1 is a Y for doing x2"

On Mon, Jun 02, 2003 at 05:08:09PM +0100, And Rosta wrote:
> Jordan:
> #>>> fracture@hidden.email 06/02/03 03:54pm >>>
> #On Mon, Jun 02, 2003 at 03:15:02AM -0400, Robert LeChevalier wrote:
> #> At 07:02 PM 6/1/03 -0400, John Cowan wrote:
> #> >Invent Yourself scripsit:
> #> > > of "lo broda = da poi broda".
> #> >
> #> >I believe it.
> #> 
> #> Whereas I rejected that equation in 1994, and still do.  I just decided 
> #> that it wasn't worth further argument.
> #
> #Well, it's baselined now, so it doesn't matter whether you reject it.
> #
> #And for that matter, why the hell would you possibly reject it?
> 
> The horrendous jboske debates of the end of 2002 saw some reasons,
> adduced by me, for questioning it.
> 
> In brief, the argument was as follows:
> 
> IF
> (a) {loi djacu} != {lo djacu}
> (b) {da djacu} neutralizes the distinction between {da du lo djacu} and
> {da du loi djacu}
> THEN
> {da poi ke'a djacu} can refer to the same thing as {da poi ke'a du loi
> djacu}, and hence to {loi djacu}.
> 
> In other words, {da poi broda} would be neutral between {lo broda}
> and {loi broda}.
> 
> HOWEVER, we do not all agree on premise (b). Arguably {lo}={da poi}
> is more 'baselined' than (b), and it is (b) that has to be abandoned.

I don't understand what you mean in (b).

-- 
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: binmHYHqmZO4u.bin
Description: application/ygp-stripped