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


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

Re: essentials of a gadri system




Message: 1
   Date: Sat, 2 Aug 2003 14:41:56 +0100
   From: "And Rosta" <a.rosta@hidden.email>
Subject: essentials of a gadri system

As a contribution to the discussion, I thought I'd sketch
what I think the essentials of a gadri system would be. I
am ignoring both the current system, and the question of
how to express these essentials verbally.

Accepted. For my part, I have put my contribution on wiki, at http://www.lojban.org/wiki/index.php/gadri%20report%2C%20aug%202003

These aren't essentials, of course, but essential additions. Still.

I am making comments on realisation, for which I hope you forgive me.

1. Kind. Requires specification of the property that
defines the Kind (e.g. "is a snake", "is a pair of
snakes", "is 75% of Oregonians", "is the stereotypical
Greek Australian").

I suppose the last two are Kinds somehow, and I guess we can try and make sure they are sayable, but they still strike me as odd.

2. Collective of everything with property P. Requires
specification of P. There could be an optional noi-statement
(i.e. incidental: asserted (truth conditional) but non-defining)
of the cardinality of the collective.

3. A specific Collective. Plus optional noi-statement (e.g.
of cardinality or of the Superset the specific Collective
belongs to). Plus optional voi-statement (i.e. unasserted
(nontruthconditional) description (e.g. of cardinality or of
the Superset the Collective belongs to).

4. Named Collective. The Collective is identified by name
(cmene). Plus optional noi- and voi-statements (of cardinality
and/or Superset).

I assume these are (if I can use for now my favoured LAhE-based solution) LAhE2 ro lo broda, LAhE2 ny lo broda, LAhE2 la broda). At any rate, something that the current language doesn't quite state, but that is encompassed in the semantic range of piroloi, pinyloi, lai, and will not require drastic change to the language to implement.

5. Is-a-Subkind-of. Binary predicate taking Kind as one argument.

This is not even a cmavo change (although it could be done with a cmavo predicate), and I have no objection to it.

6. Subset-of: "is n% of" (= "contains x out of every y members
of"), where n can be left vague and have the meaning "is a subset
of". Binary predicates taking 1-4 as one argument.

This can be either a tweak to ce'i, or a related MEI cmavo, possibly with two numeric arguments, probably not (fractions should do).

7. Each-member-of. -- Distributivizer. Applies to 1-4.

Either this is lu'i, or lu'i converts its referents a single invididual, whereupon we would likely use a different LAhE. (I'm sure there are alternatives within the baseline, but they will likely be cumbersome; e.g. ro lo pafi'uro loi...) We certainly need to settle which of the two alternatives lu'i means.

8. Existentially quantified variable (Collective). Plus optional
noi/poi-statement of cardinality or Superset.

I don't understand. Is this da-as-collective as distinct from da-as-individual, or something else?

I'm tempted to suggest how this could be lexicalized, but there
doesn't seem much point in succumbing to this temptation, since
the result would not bear any resemblance to the status quo.

I don't agree with either point, I'm afraid. Sorry. But with your permission (and even without :-) ), your desiderata enter my to-do list.

(*)(*)(*)
http://www.opoudjis.net         DR NICK NICHOLAS;  FRENCH & ITALIAN,
UNIVERSITY OF MELBOURNE               nickn@hidden.email
"Some of the English might say that the Irish orthography is very Irish. Personally, I have a lot of respect for a people who can create something
 so grotesque." -- Andrew Rosta