On Wed, Apr 07, 2004 at 02:16:18PM +0100, And Rosta wrote:
> XORXES:
> > But saving a syllable here and there is not that much power. The
> > ability to use names as brivla gives you a lot more expressive power:
> >
> > ro djan poi mi djuno cu xabju le merko
> > Every John I know lives in the US.
>
> Jordan:
> > [I think you meant sanji; djuno can't be used like that]
> > Realistically, you'd likely say something more like
> > ro me la djan. ku poi mi sanji cu xabju le merko
>
> I support CMENE=BRIVLA, and maybe the equivalence of "djan" and
> "me la djan", but "ro me la djan" doesn't mean "every John (that
> I know)" (in the usual interpretation of that phrase).
> Rather, "djan" and "me la djan" would mean "every instance/subkind
> of the Kind that I am calling 'djan'". (Of course, the Kind that
> I call 'djan' may indeed be the Kind corresponding to the
> set of all things that are called 'John' (or that I call
> 'djan').)
The above doesn't make sense to me....
But you got me thinking about {me}, and I think it is incorrect.
{me <SUMTI>} returns a predicate for `x1 is <SUMTI>-esque in aspect
x2'. What does {da me la djan.} mean? Unless the zo'e x2 is
interpreted to mean {leka du} it doesn't make any sense.
So I suppose you could use {du}? {ro du be su'o la djan.} is
everything equal to one of the johns.
Probably the most explicit way to say "every john that I know",
without the ambiguity in xorxes' suggested {ro la djan.}:
ro cmima be la'i djan. ku poi mi sanji ke'a cu xabju le merko
--
Jordan DeLong
fracture@allusion.net
Attachment:
pgp00550.pgp
Description: PGP signature