[YG Conlang Archives] > [jboske group] > messages [Date Index] [Thread Index] >
On 10/6/06, John E. Clifford <clifford-j@hidden.email> wrote:
--- In jboske@yahoogroups.com, "Jorge Llambías" <jjllambias@...> wrote: > > Or would you agree that "my going to the market" can > count as one event in some context (maybe it's my favourite activity) > and that in some other context there may be many different "my going > to the market"'s (maybe a different one happened each day this week), > such that each counts as one event? The situation with events is less clear than flags, but there are some reasons for going with the notion that both can be called by the same name. Afain, I think the same distinctions as in the dog case are probably useful.
The situation with events is what started the lattice discussion, so let's revisit it. I could say: (1) lo nu mi klama le zarci cu rapli li mu ca le cabjeftu My going to the market was repeated 5 times this week. or: (2) mu lo nu mi klama le zarci cu fasnu ca le cabdei Five of "my going to the marlet"'s happened this week. (1) and (2) describe basically the same situation, from two different perspectives. In (1) {lo nu mi klama le zarci} refers to a single thing, which was instantiated 5 times this week. In (2), {lo nu mi klama le zarci} refers to many things, five of which happened this week. The domain of discourse for (1) contains a single referent for {lo nu mi klama le zarci}. The domain of discourse for (2) contains many referents for {lo nu mi klama le zarci}. In (2), each of the referents of {lo nu mi klama le zarci} is among all the referent of {lo nu mi klama le zarci}. (In the previous sentence I used the "among" relationship but I have not mentioned the referent of {lo nu mi klama le zarci} that appears in (1).) If we leave the object language and compare the two discourses from a metalinguistic perspective, we can say that there is some relationship between the many referents of {lo nu mi klama le zarci} in (2) and the single referent of {lo nu mi klama le zarci} in (1). This metalinguistic relationship is not the "among" relationship which holds between one thing and many things. This metalinguistic relationship I would like to call "subsumption", but I welcome other suggestions if that's not a good label. Notice that it is differnet from the "among" relationship" that I used above and which holds between each of the referents of {lo nu mi klama le zarci} in (2) and all the referents of {lo nu mi klama le zarci} in (2), so I would prefer not to use the same label "among" for this different relationship. The metalinguistic event lattice I'm interested in is the one that can be built out of this new relationship, not one that could be built out of the "among" relationship. I maintain that for dogs (or for flags, or for any broda) the same type of metalinguistic lattice can be construed. This lattice is independent of the object language "among" relationship, which certainly has its place in dealing with plural predication, but which is not what I'm concerned with here. The metalinguistic lattice I'm talking about is not built out of a relationship that holds between objects in the same domain of discourse. It is built out of a relationship that relates objects from different domains of discourse. mu'o mi'e xorxes