[YG Conlang Archives] > [jboske group] > messages [Date Index] [Thread Index] >
I spent three months advocating tu'o for Kind.The reason I gave up on it was, a, it was also coopted for Substance, and b, generalising it from Mr Individual to Mr Anything Else was acutely painful. Remember Mr xodium?
Misterhood needs to be orthogonal to ontological type. While glorking tu'o will do for individuals, it will not do in the general case. How do the XSs come up with Mr xodium? (I do not have fond memories of Jorge's attempts to kludge around the subject.)
Is Mr xodium {tu'o loi marjrxodiumu}? Is Mr Couple {tu'o loi re lo prenu} -- or in your XS, {tu'o lo re prenu}? And is this really the way you want to go, rather than a general LAhE?
The bpfk is supposed to decrease the kludges not increase them? For the thousandth time, no, that is not the bpfk's mission. The bpfk is to get things clarified and/or sayable that haven't been. You want elegance, take it to LoCCan. I should not have to keep saying this.
I popped in to the wiki, saw the equation lo = Kind, and nearly walked out again. No, lo != Kind. I will not accept that. I will only accept lo = Individual or Kind of Individual. gadri usage may be confused, but some parts of the gadri system are well defined, core, and central to the language.
LAhE mess with quantification already, and the sense of re mikce is already pretty damn close to that of LAhE3 re mikce: the possible denotation remains "all doctor pairs". LAhE3 merely suspends the exporting of the prenex. If you insist on doing tuples differently, fine, I don't really care (though I do care about Mr Substance); but I don't buy your counterargument.
[][][][] [][][][][][][][][][] [][][][]
Dr Nick Nicholas. opoudjis@hidden.email http://www.opoudjis.net
University of Melbourne: nickn@hidden.email
Chiastaxo dhe to giegnissa, i dhedhato potemu,
ma ena chieri aftumeno ecratu, chisvissemu. (I Thisia tu Avraam)