In a message dated 9/21/2001 5:59:34 PM Central Daylight Time, jjllambias@hotmail.com writes:
Well, it seems to be a pointful enough thing to say that it I always worry about these kinds of equations between gismu, but your first two look ok. The third doesn't because it gives a predicate that has nothing to do with {drata} that I can see and, of course, has nothing to do with the identity function, your "natural extension" (which is like the Holy Roman Empire) notwithstanding (confusing a function with its values). Using {le du be ce'u} is pointless with {frica} since any two things that differ in any way at all differ in this (and {le ka makau du ce'u}). Or, putting it another way, if you don't know W and Chelsea are different, pointing to their self identities won't help, since they do not indicate that difference by themselves. <I want to be able to say things like: ti ta frica le ka le mamta be ce'u cu klama makau This one and that one differ in where their mothers go. But obviously functions don't go anywhere. I want ce'u to always be an argument of ka.> Sorry, even without me this won't fly the way you want: {ce'u} is minimal scope, so doesn't go beyond {le mamta be...} anyhow. For this you need {le ka ce'u goi cy zo'u le mamta be cy ...}. So my interpretation of {le mamta be ce'u} isn't your problem. (See And's discussion of the scope of {ce'u} a few days ago) <Would you accept {le se klama be le mamta be ce'u}? Is that a function into destinations, or is it the destination of a function, assuming functions can go places?> Accept as what? It appears to be a destination of a function, but I need to see some context as to what I would make of it, since it might behave differently as a sumti to a different selbri -- or with a different prenex. <What about {le frica be fi le mamta be ce'u}? Is it a function into differents, or is it someone who differs (from someone else) in their mothers?> Different from what? (I suppose it doesn'rt matter too much under {le}) . It is someone who differs from someone else in their mothers, the nominalization of the sentence we started out with, more or less. <Nope. Talking about {le mamta} is different from talking about {le du'u makau mamta}. In the first case, the talkers might not even be aware that {le mamta} is a mother.> I apparently misunderstood the question; I thought you wanted a case where it made sense to have either a concrete sumti and an abstract one in the same place. Now I am not sure what you mean. <My point is that just as some places require propositions and don't admit a concretum, other places ask for a function into propositions, not for a function to individuals.> I agree: {djuno} is clearly an example. Now, is it clear that {frica} and {dunli} are? I obviously don't think so, since I can explain such usage as part of a general scheme explaining these two words and {ce'u} and {makau}. You as obviously do think so, though the arguments (aside from pointing to the gismu list and the Refgram) are not too clear to me yet. Shall we focus on that issue for a moment, rather than on whether {le mamta be ce'u} is a function? |