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

RE: [jboske] default quantifiers (was: RE: individuation and masses


la and cusku di'e

> But then would we need lo/le at all? Why not just use
> {su'o lo'i broda} instead of {lo broda}, {ro le'i broda}
> instead of {le broda}, etc.?

A few days ago I posted a paradigm that concluded just this.

set: lu'ilo'i lu'ile'i lu'ila'i
quantified: PAlo'i PAle'i PAla'i = PAlo/le/la
substance: lu'olo'i lu'ole'i lu'ola'i
collective: lu'oilo'i lu'oile'i lu'oila'i
'unique': lu'ailo'i lu'aile'i lu'aila'i

+ if typicality is to be done by gadri:

archetype: lu'eilo'i lu'eile'i lu'eila'i 

Ok, separating the o/e/a distinction from the other distinctions
of gadri is nice, but is using the set gadri for that the best
choice? We could do the same using {ro(lo)}, {(ro)le} and {(ro)la},
which also saves a syllable but, more importantly for me, it agrees
better with the way I had understood LAhEs to work. Then we have:

set: lu'iro lu'ile lu'ila (=lo'i/le'i/la'i)
quantified: PA(ro) PAle PAla
substance: lu'oiro lu'oile lu'oila
collective: lu'oro lu'ole lu'ola (=(piro)loi/lei/lai)
'unique': lu'airo lu'aile lu'aila (=lo'e/le'e/ )

(I mischievously interchanged your lu'o and lu'oi.)

This has the advantage of being able to include partial sets and
collectives within the same paradigm:

subset: lu'isu'o lu'isu'ole lu'isu'ola
sub-coll.: lu'osu'o lu'osu'ole lu'osu'ola

Maybe sub-substance and sub-unique also make sense but I'm
not sure.

mu'o mi'e xorxes


_________________________________________________________________
MSN 8 limited-time offer: Join now and get 3 months FREE*. http://join.msn.com/?page=dept/dialup&xAPID=42&PS=47575&PI=7324&DI=7474&SU= http://www.hotmail.msn.com/cgi-bin/getmsg&HL=1216hotmailtaglines_newmsn8ishere_3mf