[YG Conlang Archives] > [jboske group] > messages [Date Index] [Thread Index] >


[Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next]

Re: [jboske] [WikiDiscuss] Re: BPFK gismu Section: Parenthetical Remarks in Brivla Definition



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