[YG Conlang Archives] > [jboske group] > messages [Date Index] [Thread Index] >
xorxes:
> 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.
I don't disagree with you, but I think that under this definition lu'i/lu'o
are sufficiently redundant and sufficiently far from CLL-intent that they
could in principle be reassigned to some altogether different but more
useful function.
One no less CLL-compliant definition would be to make lu'i a mass-to-set
converter and lu'o a set-to-mass converter. To the extent that the set/mass
distinction is worth preserving at all, I think I might prefer these
definitions.
--And.