|
coi me BPFK Below are the formal definitions of the {l•i}/{l•'i} gadri, as they can be found on the BPFK gadri page:
Now, here is a quote from "gadri: an unofficial commentary from a logical point of view", section 3:
As far as I know, gunma2 and cmima1 are non-exhaustive, in other words they do not necessarily show all the members of gunma1 and cmima2 respectively. (Correct me if I'm wrong!) I don't like very much the idea of using the sel- rafsi in a non-compositional way, for making lujvo of the form {selbroda} whose meaning cannot be derived from {se broda}. It seems there's a pretty wide implicit agreement that the sel/ter/vel/xel rafsi should be regular (semantically compositional). So, I think the BPFK should make an official decision on whether {loi broda}/{lo'i broda} might include things that do not broda among their referents, and clarify the formal definitions accordingly if necessary. I would expect them to never include things that do not broda. If so, the definition should probably be modified as shown below: • loi [PA] broda = lo gunma be lo [PA] broda .e no drata be ri • lo'i [PA] broda = lo se cmima be lo [PA] broda .e no drata be ri What do you think? mu'o mi'e la .ilmen. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "BPFK" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to bpfk-list+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to bpfk-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/bpfk-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. |