[YG Conlang Archives] > [jboske group] > messages [Date Index] [Thread Index] >
mi pu cusku di'e
> I propose instead the following heuristic definition:
>
> su'o lu'i <sumti>: a set X such that <sumti> cmima X and
> nothing not mentioned in <sumti> cmima X.
But now I've changed my mind.
That definition still gives bad results for lu'i ko'a enai ko'e,
for example, as it gives just {ko'a}, making the "enai ko'e"
part meaningless. And for lu'i ko'a na.enai ko'e it gives the
empty set.
I now think that the simplest definition is the best
(as usual): {lu'i} = {lo selcmi be}.
To get {ko'a ce ko'e}, we have to say {lu'i ko'a e ko'e e no drata}
"the set of ko'a and ko'e and nothing else". {no drata} can be
made more precise: {no drata be ko'a e ko'e}, or even
{no da poi na du ko'a a ko'e}.
We also have the short form {lu'i po'o ko'a e ko'e}: The set of only
ko'a and ko'e, which works with the usual meaning of po'o. (The only
thing I'm not completely sure about is the positioning of po'o, but
that seems like the best one.)
{lu'i ko'a a ko'e e no drata} gives {ko'a}, {ko'e} or {ko'a, ko'e},
with the same {no drata} as before. Again it has the short form
{lu'i po'o ko'a a ko'e}.
{lu'i ko'a onai ko'e e no drata} gives {ko'a} or {ko'e}, but not
{ko'a, ko'e}, which is what we would want.
{lu'i ko'a na.enai ko'e} will give any set that excludes both ko'a
and ko'e. {lu'i ko'a na.enai ko'e e no drata} is of course the
empty set.
The definition of {lu'i po'o} is not completely formal, but it follows
the usual meaning of {po'o}, and this way {lu'i} itself is clearly
defined.
mu'o mi'e xorxes
__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
The New Yahoo! Search - Faster. Easier. Bingo.
http://search.yahoo.com