[YG Conlang Archives] > [jboske group] > messages [Date Index] [Thread Index] >
la nitcion cusku di'e
> In any case, {lu'a lo broda} is legal
> and intelligible, even if redundant. So what? Remember, elegance has
> never been my criterion.
What does {lu'a lo girzu} mean? A member of some group, or an individual
group? You seem to be assuming that {lu'a lo broda} is equivalent to
{lo broda}. I have always assumed that {lu'a <sumti>} is equivalent
to {lo cmima be <sumti>}, whatever <sumti> is, quantified or not,
whatever its gadri.
If you don't agree that LAhE's are just short forms of {lo broda be}
for some suitable broda, then you should at least give some account of
how they function. (There was a threed about this a few days ago, but
I won't fault you for missing it, given the volume we've been having.)
[...]
> CLL-lo is extensional, because of its assumed {su'o}. I refuse to be
> barred from glorking {su'o} before {lo}. I will allow you to also glork
> {tu'o}. That is as much as I will concede.
I think that is good enough. The availability of {su'o broda} for
explicit extensional, plus Grice, should insure that {lo broda} is
glorked as Kind often enough.
[...]
> Then ask Jorge. Who used that very sentence of my own usage against me.
> (Yes, I am peeved. What did you think, Jorge, that I would say "Oh, I
> used {lo} without reflection intensionally 10 years ago, before I even
> knew what an intension is, so obviously extensionalist {lo} is
> untenable"?)
No, I just thought it was interesting that it was used in a book
published this year. :) In other words, it is something that we have
a lot of trouble noticing unless we make a special effort to look for
it.
The way {skicu} is defined in the gi'uste you should have ka there
(it is not unlikely that the gi'uste was different when you wrote
it), but that is not really the point.
> It's because I too am starting to see a ka abstraction there that I
> added the proviso at the end. If this is not the Lydian stone, then
> someone come up with one (with an explicitly Unique lo that strikes all
> and sundry as commonsensical); because without that, I withdraw my
> concession. I don't think it will be hard to do so; but I need concrete
> examples.
A couple of examples:
lo jugypre cu te cmene lo ri panzi lo cmalu
The Chinese give their children short names.
mi ta'e cpacu lo karni bu'u le zdani i ku'i ca le cabdei ky na tolcliva
isemu'ibo mi tcidu ky bu'u le briju
Usually I receive the newspaper at home, but today it didn't arrive,
so I read it at the office.
> We already have what you want mentioned in the lessons, as my
> (Johanninely blessed) extrapolation from CLL: ci lo re lo plise.
Could John confirm that he blesses this as "three pairs of apples"
rather than as "three of two of all apples"? I always had the
impression that the latter was the CLL reading. Your extrapolation
does not match this example from CLL (Ch.6):
9.5) pa le re le ci cribe cu bunre
One-of the two-of the three bears are-brown.
Of course this is le, not lo, so that might make a difference.
In any case, if you accept {ci lo re lo plise}, it is just a matter
of time before usage drops the useless second lo. It would be kept
if it ever separated an inner quantifier, but since inner quantifier
as the total cardinality of avatars is practically useless, it
won't interfere much.
mu'o mi'e xorxes
__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
The New Yahoo! Search - Faster. Easier. Bingo.
http://search.yahoo.com