RE: [jboske] 3rd version of gadri system (3rd ExSol)

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

xorxes:
> Each new ExSol is getting more ecellent that the previous one!

Phew! It would be very dispiriting if it had not received your
approbation!

> I have a couple of minor suggestions:
> 
> >3. Either lV is gadrow for Kind and lVi is gadrow for Jbomass, or
> >vice versa. It's hard to say which is more compatible with SL,
> >but lVi for Kind and lV for Jbomass is more compatible with the
> >bits of SL that are not a mess. In exx below I will use lo for
> >Jbomass and loi for Kind (in a reversal from 2nd Ex Sol), but
> >this assignment is not part of the proposal, which is neutral
> >between the two alternative assignments 
> 
> I prefer the opposite assignment. I have the lVi-collective
> connection too internalized already to give it up easily 
> Also, I think Kind deserves the least marked form 

I feel the same.

> >13. {PA lo broda} = PA members of the collective expressed by
> >{lo broda} 
> >{PA loi broda} = PA Kinds of the Kind expressed by {loi broda} 
> 
> I would like:
> 
> 13. {PA loi broda} = PA Collectives expressed by {loi broda} 
> {PA lo broda} = PA Kinds of the Kind expressed by {lo broda} 
> 
> It would not make sense to use PA when {loi broda} is
> {loi ro broda} or {loi tu'o broda}, but quantifying
> over collectives is useful in other cases: {ro loi re broda}
> would be "every pair of brodas" 
> 
> We already have piPA to get to the members. Additionally, we
> could get to the members with PAfi'u(ro):
> 
> {PAfi'u(ro) loi broda}: PA members of the collective expressed
> by {lo broda}

So my {PA loi ro} = your {PA lo pa}.
For me, {PA loi pa} is nonsense. For you, {PA loi ro} is nonsense.

Yes, okay. I prefer your suggestion.

> >17. {PA broda} = {PA lo broda}, which in most contexts would
> >be glorked as {PA lo ro broda} 
> 
> This becomes:
> 
> {PA broda} = {PAfi'u(ro) loi broda} 

Okay.

> >The same goes for {piPA broda} 
> 
> I would reserve {piPA broda} for {piPA loi pa broda}, fraction
> of individual, but this need further thought. I'm not sure
> whether it is compatible with the rest 

I need to think about it more too.

--And.