RE: [jboske] Re: big rethink on Unique and other gadri

["And Rosta" <a.rosta@lycos.co.uk>]

Nick:
> cu'u la .and 
> 
> > Lojbab:
> > > >I see what you're also doing is saying:
> > > >
> > > >{le} is +specific -veridical
> > > >{lo} is -specific +veridical
> > > >
> > > >If we had a -specific -veridical, we'd have the solution to our
> > > >problems
> > >
> > > I would imagine that there are a couple of UI discursives already in 
> > the
> > > language that would convey -specific,
> >
> > I don't think so. The best hope would be to use something like {kau} 
> > that
> > is known to be a meaningless diacritic 
> 
> Just as I've worked out for myself (with your prodding) a meaningful 
> formal sense of {kau}? Oh no you don't. {kau}'s taken, and I won't have 
> it subverted.. 

If you explained it, I didn't grock the explanation.

> > > and if the only point is to address
> > > possibly non-existent things like unicorns, I don't see why leda'i 
> > -unicorn
> > > doesn't convey that
> > The BF will have to rule on whether this (ab)use of da'i that has been
> > established through usage is official 
> 
> Inasmuch as the BPFK has to rule what the hell da'i means, yes 

Right, but for reasons I won't go into now (because after all this
is Christmas Day & families need to be attended to), I think the
mainstream usage of it (of which many years ago I was an early exponent) 
is somewhat dire.

> > Addressing possibly nonexistent things like unicorns is not the only
> > point, but that is not to say that Intensional gadri don't have
> > Intensionalless paraphrases 
> 
> *shrug* da'icu'i? 'May or may not be in existence in the real world?'

Doesn't cover all the cases, even if it might cover some. I will
post my attempt at paraphrases of all types of Intensional when I
have time to write it.

--And.