[YG Conlang Archives] > [jboske group] > messages [Date Index] [Thread Index] >
xorxes:
> la and cusku di'e
>
> > Thus, "the
> > people filled the room" and "the rubble filled the room" both seem to me
> > to qualify as xod-Collectives. I am thinking that lo'i/le'i/la'i might
be
> > suitable for this purpose, generalizing the notion of 'mathematical set'
> > to something like 'collection whose properties aren't shared with its
> > constituents' (cardinality being the paradigm case of such a property).
>
> I wouldn't mind that as long as it is understood that lo'i/le'i/la'i
> are more precise forms of lo/le/la but with the latter never incompatible
> with the former. So:
>
> le so'i prenu cu se culno le kumfa
> The thing I describe as "many people" fills the
> thing I describe as "room".
>
> le'i so'i prenu cu se culno le kumfa
> The thing I describe as "many people" focusing on its
> emergent properties, fills the thing I describe as "room".
Yes -- of course.
> In fact, the definition of {gunma} suddenly becomes meaningful from
> this perspective. We can say:
>
> lo gunma be le so'i prenu cu se culno le kumfa
> The together of the thing I describe as "many people"
> fills the room.
>
> in which case the xod-collective could be a LAhE corresponding to
> {lo gunma be}, probably {lu'o}.
This gives
gunma : lu'o : lV'i
instead of
gunma : lu'o : lVi
-- which might be felt to be too disruptive. How about if lV'i were
left for the purely mathematical sets, and lVi were for xod-Collectives?
That might be more consistent with CLL, given that lVi were anyway
considered to be the most messed-up of the gadri & hence the ripest
for change.
--And.