[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: [lojban] More about quantifiers



In a message dated 3/12/2002 2:56:35 PM Central Standard Time, arosta@uclan.ac.uk writes:


The syntax of Lojban is such that every "lo" sumti can be
translated into a "da poi ... ke'a" sumti, but not vice versa.
(The main examples would be where ke'a is embedded
within a subordinate bridi or sumti within the relative
clause.)

Hence, any 'exchange' between the two must be one-way, from
"da poi ke'a" to "lo".

Hence it makes sense to see "lo" as simply an abbreviation
of "da poi ke'a".


Well, I think this is probably due to lack of ingenuity on somebodies part, but since I share that with them, i.e., have no clue how to do it in extreme cases, I'll take that as a defect.  Not much of one, of course, since I really do want to have {da poi} on the importing side but I was following Cowan's example and the advice of improbability in ttrying to ndail down the different forms. Also, it seems to leave only the ultimate forms or something very like them for the free forms and that is probably too yucky to mention (maybe that was what the advice about not getting {da poi} as + meant).

<Further, if Jorge and pc want to propose comprehensive
systems for importing and nonimporting quantifiers, they
should be done solely on the basis of "da poi ke'a", since
only such a system will generalize to all cases. In this
respect, Jorge's and pc's proposals are equally defective.>

How disappointing!  But it does provide a nice agreeable ending for the discussion.  Except that we now have no forms for the people who seem to want - forms.  Not a great loss, I think, but they (and I rather think & and surely xorxes are in the group) will want to protest.  Well, let them come up with a good answer, then.