[YG Conlang Archives] > [jboske group] > messages [Date Index] [Thread Index] >
xorxes:
> la and cusku di'e
>
> > Quantified forms are analogous to lo/le/la. They don't yield a distinct
> > meaning when quantifying over members, but they do when quantifying over
> > avatars
> > and subkinds.
> >
> > See
http://www.lojban.org/wiki/index.php/XXS%3A%20Extended%20XS%20proposal
>
> I fully support the outer PA section of XXS.
>
> I don't object to the section on the extension to other gadri, but only
> because it is reasonably compatible with basic XS and also very close
> to CLL. I just don't see much point in having all these gadri at
> all.
>
> I take it that you can't say for example:
>
> *lei ci nanmu cu bevri le pipno gi'ebabo surla
> *The three men carried the piano and then rested.
>
> "Resting" would be a property shared with the members, so not a property
> of {lei ci nanmu}. You'd have toi say:
>
> lei ci nanmu cu bevri le pipno ijebabo ro ra surla
> The three men carried the piano and then each of them rested.
>
> Whereas with XS-le there is no problem in saying:
>
> le ci nanmu cu bevri le pipno gi'ebabo surla
> The three men carried the piano and then rested.
Correct.
The reasoning is that (a) lVi has to mean something, unless we could
abolish it (which we wouldn't be allowed to do), (b) xod-collectives
cannot be expressed by other cmavo, (c) systemic symmetry calls for
lVi to differ in meaning from lV (and lV'i). If it were politically
possible to abolish the other gadri besides lV, as part of a programme
of simplifications to the language, then I would be in favour.
--And.