[YG Conlang Archives] > [jboske group] > messages [Date Index] [Thread Index] >
la and cusku di'e
> I think the *intent* of lu'i is clear -- it is somehow supposed to
> magic a distributive into a set. I.e. lu'i ko'a e ko'e is intended
> to be equivalent to ko'a ce ko'e.
That's how I have always understood it, too.
> Getting that to work is quite a
> tall order, though. Here's how it might be done:
>
> (tu'o) lu'i ko'a e ko'e
> = the set that includes ko'a e ko'e and that excludes ro da poi
> ko'a e ko'e na du ke'a
> = the set {ko'a, ko'e}
(where na is naku). Right.
> > If we take the complement to be the full list of the members,
> > we run into trouble with things like {lu'i ko'a enai ko'e}.
> > How is that different from {lu'i ko'a}?
>
> On my suggestion: {su'o lu'i ko'a enai ko'e}
> = a set that includes ko'a and excludes ko'e
And may or may not include anything else. So this one agrees
with the simpler definition.
> > And what is {lu'i ko'a a ko'e}?
>
> {su'o lu'i ko'a a ko'e}
> = a set that includes ko'a or ko'e and excludes everything thst is
> either not ko'a or not ko'e. IOW, something that is the set {ko'a}
> or the set {ko'e}.
{ro da poi ko'a a ko'e naku du ke'a}, if ko'a and ko'e are
different things, is everything. So everything would have to be
be excluded. So {lu'i ko'a a ko'e} gives a contradiction with
your definition.
> > So, while {lu'a} seems to be fairly clear, the functioning of
> > {lu'i} and {lu'o} is not at all clear to me.
>
> I think my suggestion for lu'i, which would apply also to lu'o,
> is perhaps the best compromise between usefulness and consistency.
The problem is that it fails for {lu'i ko'a a ko'e} and
therefore also for {lu'i su'o broda}, which is the set that
includes at least one broda but excludes everything which
is not equal to every broda, i.e. it excludes everything if there
is more than one broda.
mu'o mi'e xorxes
__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
The New Yahoo! Search - Faster. Easier. Bingo.
http://search.yahoo.com