[YG Conlang Archives] > [jboske group] > messages [Date Index] [Thread Index] >
xorxes:
> la and cusku di'e
>
> > 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}]
>
> Actually, I had {PA le} for quantified Spec and {PA lu'a le}
> for members of Spec. But we can change {PA le} to members so that
> it matches the current prescription.
>
> > 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.
>
> (1) and (2) can be considered minimal changes, just a change in the
> default quantifiers of lo and le. (Which brings them more in line with
> usage in many cases.)
Indeed.
> (3) changes the meaning of the inner quantifier of lo, but the
> current convention is rather useless,
And *unused*.
> as specifying the cardinality
> of lo'i broda is generally impossible. For le no change is involved.
>
> > 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.
>
> Right.
>
> > 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.
>
> No changes would be needed for lo'i/le'i/lo'e/le'e.
> {loi broda} could simply be a short form of {lo tu'o broda}.
> I'm not sure about {lei broda}. If defined as {le tu'o broda}
> it would fit the pattern, but it would invalidate some usage.
CLL {lVi broda} would probably be equivalent to XS (X for Excellent or for
Xorxes) {su'o lV broda}, where the inner PA is a glorked choice between
tu'o and za'u.
But it would be nice if the default inner PA were stipulated to be {tu'o},
because that would mean that there would never be any need to use {tu'o}
explicitly. (For similar reasons to our aversion to overt zi'o.)
--And.