[YG Conlang Archives] > [jboske group] > messages [Date Index] [Thread Index] >
xorxes:
> la and cusku di'e
>
> > I think our discussions have proved that at minimum, only 3 gadri are
> > indispensable: Group, Kind, Specific.
>
> This and some of And's exc.sols inspired me the following minimalist
> fantasy. Those of you who get stressed by these things please
> hit the delete key now and disregard this post. It is probably
> irrelevant to bpfk business.
>
> Let's start with lo. This gadri will be empty of any and all
> meaning. It is there only for the purpose of converting a selbri
> to something that the parser will recognize as a sumti. It simply
> selects the x1 place of the selbri that follows. No default
> quantifiers are assumed inside or out. Using {lo cipni} as
> an argument just imbues the place where we use it with the
> meaning from x1 of cipni, it doesn't refer to any particular
> object.
>
> Now we add le, which is like lo but specific. This time
> there is a specific thing (or group of things) we want to talk
> about, and we will use the sumti in question (le broda} to
> refer it. The thing need not be an actual object in the world,
> it may be anything we want to talk about, but it is something
> specific we have in mind. The choice of broda is whatever we
> think convenient for our audience to identify what we have in
> mind. {le cipni} can be used to refer to any object in the world,
> but it will of course be used most often when talking about
> objects that are birds. "Certain object I have in mind that
> I describe as cipni". It may be a bird, a group of birds,
> anything at all.
>
> Those are all the gadri we need.
>
> Now we get to numbers. {lo pa broda} is just like {lo broda}
> plus the idea of one. {lo pa cipni} is the meaning of the x1
> of {cipni pamei} in normal Lojban. It is the singular of the
> x1 of cipni. It does not refer to any one bird. Using
> {lo pa cipni} in a relationship again just imbues that
> argument place with the idea of a singular cipni. {lo re cipni}
> is "pair of birds", {lo za'u cipni} is "plurality of birds",
> etc.
>
> Similarly for {le pa cipni}, {le re cipni}, {le za'u cipni}.
> They refer in each case to single objects I have in mind which
> I choose to describe as "one bird" "two birds" "more than one bird".
> Usually the single object in question will be a single bird, a pair
> of birds (as a single object), a group of birds (as a single
> object)respectively. So for example {le za'u cipni cu morna lo pa cukla}
> says that the object that I describe as "more than one bird" forms
> a pattern corresponding to the idea of "one circle". {le za'u cipni
> cu morna lo re cukla} says that the object that I describe as "more
> than one bird" forms a pattern corresponding to the idea of "two
> circles".
>
> Now, if we want to distribute a property among referents,
> we use outer quantifiers: {cino le pa cipni cu vofli ga'u mi}
> says that each of thirty objects which I describe (each one)
> as "one bird" fly above me. {cino le re cipni} says that
> thirty pairs of birds fly above me. Noha put {ro lo danlu}
> in his arc: every animal.
>
> Quantifiers on their own serve a special purpose. {PA broda}
> is {PA le pa broda} but with a special proviso: the in-mind
> set over which we quantify is the set of all the things that
> are conventionally deemed to veridically satisfy the predicate
> broda. So {ci remna} are three of all the things that are
> considered to be single human beings, i.e. the instances of
> Mr Human Being that are spatiotemporally continuous in the
> appropriate way. In other words, {ci remna} is the same
> thing as in normal Lojban.
>
> When we want to talk of stuff that can't be individuated, we
> signal that explicitly wit {tu'o}: {lo tu'o djacu} is water,
> the stuff. {lo tu'o cipni} is bird, the stuff (perhaps the
> filling of some food). {le tu'o cipni} the particular object
> I have in mind that I describe as "bird stuff".
> {ci le tu'o cipni} are three such objects.
>
> Here are some traditional - minimalist equivalences:
>
> le pa broda - le pa broda
> [ro] le ci broda - ci le pa broda
> re le ci broda - re lu'a le ci broda
> lei broda - le broda
> lei ci broda - le ci broda
> [ro] le re broda cimei - re le ci broda
> [su'o] lo broda - su'o broda
> ci broda - ci broda
> loi broda - su'o le broda
>
> Some with Kind-lo'e:
>
> lo'e broda - lo broda
> lo klesi be lo'e broda - su'o lo broda
> ci klesi be lo'e broda - ci lo broda
> lo'e broda pamei - lo pa broda
> lo'e broda cimei - lo ci broda
>
> I believe this minimalist system based on lo, le and quantifiers
> covers everything we need.
Bravo! There are only a couple of things I don't get:
> loi broda - su'o le broda
I don't understand this equivalence, since loi is not specific & by your
description {su'o le} is.
The other thing I don't get is how you distinguish "Mr Two Birds" from
"A pair of birds" (as a Group, with existence claim "There is a pair of
birds").
Oh, and for quantifying over members of Mr Two Birds, I take it that
you'd use {lu'i lo}, right?
--And.