[YG Conlang Archives] > [jboske group] > messages [Date Index] [Thread Index] >
John:
> And Rosta scripsit:
>
> > pa doesn't guarantee uniqueness: ro broda cu brode pa li mu = "each
broda is
> > brode of one number 5". Because there is only one number 5, this isn't
> > a problem, of course. But the quantifier should be tu'o.
>
> I agree that pa does not guarantee uniqueness, but since uniqueness is
> guaranteed by outside factors, there seems to be no reason not to use it
> as the default. Saying "tu'o" is the default suggests that by default
> there is no meaningful answer to the question "How many instances of
> li mu are there", whereas it seems to me there is a meaningful answer,
> viz. one.
I disagree on three counts.
1. Using pa relies on encyclopedic knowledge to override the logical form
that allows that there may be multiple instances of a number. I think it
is reasonable to expect the grammar to know that there is only one Five,
and to refer to 5 accordingly.
2. tu'o doesn't suggest that there are no meaningful answers. It is simply
the absence of quantification. Logically, "tu'o li 5" is a *constant*.
CLL-Lojban doesn't have constants, but I think it should, and that much
confused messiness results from the lack of constants.
3. It is arguably correct that the cardinality of the mass of all Five(s)
is tu'o rather than pa. Since we can't conceive of what re li mu would
be like, we can't know that there is exactly pa li mu. In fact, Five is
a Kind, and the question generalizes to whether there is one Mr X or
tu'o Mr X. Well, if you double the avatarage of Mr Bird, you end up
still with Mr Bird. You can have Mr Two Birds, but Mr Bird isn't a member
of Mr Two Birds. In summary, uncountability looks similar to Oneness,
but if we make the distinction -- and we do find it useful to make it
when distinguishing between Brick Object and Brick Stuff -- then Kinds
come out as uncountables.
> > So is {re la smifs} nonsensical?
>
> I don't know.
Given your "Yes" below, I'd say that the answer here is No, but that
your description of {la} as involving a *single* indivudual named
smifs was incorrect.
> > Taking your characterization
> > of Lojban cmene as corrent, I think they are best thought of as
> > brivla (with a restricted distribution), and a-gadri as varieties of
> > e-gadri.
>
> Yes.
Okay, then I am clear on the workings of a-gadri then.
--And.