[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"

Jordan:
> 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) 

The claim made by (b) is that if "da du lo djacu" then "da djacu"
and if "da du loi djacu" then "da djacu". 

--And.