[YG Conlang Archives] > [jboske group] > messages [Date Index] [Thread Index] >
And Rosta scripsit:
> No it doesn't. {ci lo mikce} is a full sumti & means "there are three
> doctors".
Eh? It is a sumti, indeed, and it means "three doctors".
> > But I gotta ask: have outer quantifiers ever been an issue for li? For
> > la'e?
>
> For me & xorxes, yes. Not because we're ornery, but because we tend to be
> first to ask the questions that have to be asked.
CLL points out that the default quantifier for "li" is "pa", numbers being
unique; for "me'o" it's "su'o", expressions being definitely not unique.
> > I know And wanted a Unique quantifier (currently tu'o) to seal up
> > the quantification of such gadri, but I cannot see why the default for
> > them would be anything but tu'o anyway.
>
> I'm okay with that. Taking tu'o to be counterpart of zi'o rather than
> zo'e.
No problem there. But a default quantifier is just that, default; it can
be overridden. To really *prohibit* quantification requires a grammar
change.
> Currently it is {(ro) la smifs} and {lai smifs}.
I would expect "la smifs" and "lai smif".
> I don't know what either of them mean. Is Johnny Marr su'o la smifs?
No.
> Or is la/lai a distinction without a difference?
"LA foox" means "LE selcme be zo foox", so "la smifs" refers to an
individual (which may of course have parts, like any individual), named
"smifs"; "lai smif" is a mass composed of individuals each of which
(within the usual constraints of masses) is named "smif". You can't
subdivide an individual without a full selbri.
> > 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.
>
> No, not unless you're inventing a raft of ad hoc LAhE interpretation
> rules. Since {(su'o) lo pavyseljirna} is a quantified sumti, the
> quantifer would export to the prenex and provide an existence claim.
Correct. "lu'e lo xavgismu" is garbage.
> > You can have two groups called The Smiths.
>
> Homonymy.
No, LA-expressions exhibit neither homonymy nor polysemy. la djan. is
"The one(s) of all those named 'John' that I have in mind."
--
John Cowan jcowan@hidden.email www.reutershealth.com www.ccil.org/~cowan
If a soldier is asked why he kills people who have done him no harm, or a
terrorist why he kills innocent people with his bombs, they can always
reply that war has been declared, and there are no innocent people in an
enemy country in wartime. The answer is psychotic, but it is the answer
that humanity has given to every act of aggression in history. --Northrop Frye