Re: {lo} != {da poi}, & another Excellent Solution

[Nick Nicholas <opoudjis@optushome.com.au>]

Every time I hear of an Excellent Solution, I reach for my gun. :-)

cu'u la .and.

> The following facts are incompatible:
> {lo blanu} means "da poi is-a-countable-blue-thing".<BR>
> {ti blanu} means "this is blue", not "this is-a-countable-blue-thing".<BR>

How do you figure?

If {ti} denotes only countables, than {ti blanu} does indeed mean 
"this is-a-countable-blue-thing".

If {ti} can also denote non-countables (and surely that is so), then 
it is merely ambiguous.

{lo blanu} = {da poi "is-a-countable-blue-thing"}. Of these 
components, the 'countable' comes from {lo}, and the 'blue' from 
{blanu}.
{pisu'o loi blanu} = {da poi "is-a-non-countable-blue-thing"}.
Clearly, the denotation of {blanu} itself includes both countables 
and non-countables; it is +/- countable.

{ti} likewise includes in its potential denotation both countables 
and non-countables.

So in the absence of a gadri indicating countability, {ti blanu} is 
unspecified as to countability. Where is the problem?

Sure our usual metalanguage speaks only of da as individuals. But 
that is untenable: da must also be able to refer to masses, sets, and 
whatever else might come up.

Of your alternatives (can't cut and paste from browser for some reason):

"this is blue" = {ti du pisu'o loi blanu}? Wholly unnecessary.

Scrap lo = da poi? Also verboten. But note that if da encompasses 
both individuals and masses, then both lo = da poi and loi = da poi, 
and you need an extra predicate to differentiate between the two 
(zi'e poi selci, zi'e poi gunma).

... But the remainder of the excellent proposal, I'll have to think 
about some more; it's not as patently wierd as its lead-up...

--
**** **** **** **** **** **** **** **** **** **** **** **** **** **** ****
* Dr Nick Nicholas, French & Italian Studies nickn@unimelb.edu.au *
University of Melbourne, Australia http://www.opoudjis.net
* "Eschewing obfuscatory verbosity of locutional rendering, the *
circumscriptional appelations are excised." --- W. Mann & S. Thompson,
* _Rhetorical Structure Theory: A Theory of Text Organisation_, 1987. *
**** **** **** **** **** **** **** **** **** **** **** **** **** **** ****