[YG Conlang Archives] > [jboske group] > messages [Date Index] [Thread Index] >
xorxes:
> la and cusku di'e
> > 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").
>
> That would have to be done with {su'oboi remei}. Not very nice.
>
> One possibility would be to use outer quantifiers on lo to get
> to the groups/individuals, and use a LAhE for the subkinds.
> So loi broda would correspond to su'o lo su'o broda, and
> PA broda would correspond to PA lo pa broda.
>
> > Oh, and for quantifying over members of Mr Two Birds, I take it that
> > you'd use {lu'i lo}, right?
>
> {lu'a lo re cipni}, yes.
So you have:
le = Spec
PA le = members of Spec
lo = Kind
PA lo = avatar of Kind [So this cd be equiv to PA broda]
PA lu'a lo = members of Kind
PA LAhE-subkind lo = subtype of Kind [Can also be applied to {le}]
I don't see why this should be so absolutely beyond the pale for Nick.
It requires only the following changes:
(1) Bare lo = tu'o lo instead of su'o lo
(2) Bare le = tu'o le instead of ro le
(3) {lo PA} != {lo PAro}
(4) a new LAhE (which Nick can hardly veto, since he's proposing new LAhE
himself)
Hardly any usage at all would be invalidated by these changes, and
probably a substantial amount of previous usage would become validated.
Making these pretty minimal changes allows us to say everything we need.
The remaining existing gadri can then be defined according to whatever
compromise between usefulness, logical coherence and CLL-conformity
is deemed best.
So in all seriousness I say to Nick: accept (1-3) and we will at a single
bound have solved virtually the whole gadri problem. The only challenge
left will be to make the remaining gadri logically coherent, but this
task will be much easier because it wouldn't be freighted with the
additional requirement of having to afford us ways to say what would
otherwise not be sayable.
--And.