[YG Conlang Archives] > [jboske group] > messages [Date Index] [Thread Index] >
xorxes:
> 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.
You're right, but it's still probably the most useful definition of
lu'i/lu'o, in that it yields something useful for ro & e.
All this goes to prove my point (on phpbb) that LAhE is not the panacea
Nick believes it to be.
--And.