[YG Conlang Archives] > [jboske group] > messages [Date Index] [Thread Index] >
la nitcion cusku di'e
> Of course there is an
> alternative for collective: lo za'u lo broda , which is grammatical.
{lo za'u lo broda} traditionally is just "at least one of more
than one of all broda".
If you meant {loi za'u lo broda}, then I agree.
{su'o loi za'u lo broda}: some group of more than one broda.
{ci loi za'u lo broda}: three groups of more than one broda.
But with that precedent, it will be hard to stop condensing
them to {su'o loi za'u broda} and {ci loi za'u broda}.
And then to {[su'o] loi broda} for "some group of brodas" and
{ci loi broda} for "three groups of brodas", where in this
case groups can eventually have one member. ({loi broda} already
means that traditionally, though arrived at through a more tortuous
road, i.e. fractionators.)
> Perhaps we can use that instead of LAhE as an unambiguous collective
> signal.
An explicit inner quantifier for loi other than tu'o is always an
unambiguous signal for collective.
> > A LAhE DOES seem like the best option for signalling de re/de dicto.
> > Also,
> > this is somewhat orthogonal to the rest of the gadri.
>
> There is definitely the whiff of {la'e lu'e} about de dicto, so I agree.
Isn't {la'e lu'e} de re?
la'e lu'e lo'e rozgu = lo selsni be lo sinxa be lo'e rozgu
"a referent of a reference to roses"
Isn't that the rose by any other name?
> Jorge, John and And have reproached you more civilly on lo'e than I can
> hope to. I don't care that you're used to using lo'e as a generic
And I don't care that you don't care :P
> rather than how it has been officially defined by the LLG for years; if
> anything, I take a particular delight in combating such humpty
> dumptying.
My use of lo'e is a natural _extension_, not humpty-dumptying,
of CLL lo'e, which in turn is nothing but Kind-lo'e with an
obligatory na'oku/ta'eku attached to it.
> I agree that if a property is attributable to both the individuals and
> the collective, we need not pick one or the other. I don't see the
> number of such properties being all that big, though I have a nasty
> suspicion you'll pull some horrid example out...
The tourists walking from the bus to the museum, the clouds in the sky
being white and being seen, the people in the stadium cheering for their
team. All of those can apply to the group or to each member of the
group. Applying them to the group makes things easier and clear. I'm not
sure what kind of examples xod was complaining about. Perhaps the problem
here is that we are talking too abstractly.
> > I will say, tho, that "LAhE3 su'o lo" will not work. Perhaps "LAhE3
> > tu'o lo" would work, but that raises the question of what "tu'o lo"
> > means.
>
> Why? After all, there is no extensional prenex requirement on the
> referent of LAhE: lo pavyseljirna is non-existent and cannot enter a
> prenex, but lu'e lo pavyseljirna does exist. So does lu'e ci lo
> pavyseljirna. If lu'e ci lo pavyseljirna is harmless for "three tokens
> of 'unicorn' ",
It is not harmless! Why three tokens? Isn't it {lo sinxa be ci lo
pavyseljirna) = "some token of exactly three unicorns"?
> I'm going to need many more examples than the bifurcated snakes to
> convince myself, let alone others, that this needs a cmavo. If you
> convince me, though, sure, that's a job for LAhE (this time with an
> outer quantifier) too.
"He only knows how to draw two animals: snakes and bears.
He draws them all the time."
"two animals" here is "two subkind-of animal-kind".
"snakes" and "bears" are two kinds, which are in turn
sub-kinds of the kind "animals".
I can't say whether or not this warrants a special gadri,
ideally we could just do it with strategically placed
quantifiers.
More explicitly we can say {re klesi be lo'e danlu}.
mu'o mi'e xorxes
__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
The New Yahoo! Search - Faster. Easier. Bingo.
http://search.yahoo.com