Re: [lojban] More about quantifiers

["Jorge Llambias" <jjllambias@hotmail.com>]

la pycyn cusku di'e

> I seemed
> to ahve replied that it was too ugly to use; yet I like {me'iro}.  Tastes
> change? Maybe not; I still think {da'asu'o} is too ugly to use.

I prefer {me'iro} too, but not based purely on taste. For one
thing, it is shorter, but more importantly, the {da'a} form
really belongs to the complement series:

    da'aro = no
    da'ano = ro
  da'asu'o = me'iro
da'ame'iro = su'o

Of course, ideally we should have a single word for {me'iro}.
Otherwise, to make things more symmetrical we'd have to use
{za'uno} instead of {su'o}:

    da'aro = no
    da'ano = ro
da'aza'uno = me'iro
da'ame'iro = za'uno

> Moving negations around.
>
> mine:     Drop initial {naku}
>              exchange {Q da poi broda} and {Q broda}
>              exchange Q as above
>              internal {naku} as above

The "exchange {Q da poi broda} and {Q broda}" bit is the ugly
step for me. When {broda} is a complex bridi, this may mean
adding lots of be-bei's and possibly having to do internal
rearrangments if {ke'a} is not the first sumti. It sounds like
a simple rule, but in practice it is not. It removes the
freedom to use the {poi} form as a stylistic variant, which
is all it is in my version.

> The other negation movings are the same, mutatis mutandis.  (I should note
> that, given his usage, xorxes may have some trouble coming up with 
> reasonable
> I- and O- forms, since, whatever you may think about {le ro broda}, {lo 
> su'o
> broda} pretty clearly cannot be empty.)

The {lo su'o broda} forms in my system are just convenient
shortcuts. The full fledged forms will add {ganai da broda gi}
in front of the corresponding + form.

> Admittedly, then, in an ideal xorxes system my rules would be a whole step
> more complicated.

It's not the quantity of steps that matter, it's their quality.
Having {Q broda} mean something different from {Q da poi broda}
causes a lot of unnecessary complications.

> I think that extra effort is worth it to be able to tell
> at a glance that a setence has existential import.

I'm not sure it buys you even that. Just hide a negation a
bit and at least for me it is not something you can tell at
a glance:

  no broda me'iro da poi brode cu brodi

Does that have existential import for brode? Can you really
tell at a glance?

mu'o mi'e xorxes



_________________________________________________________________
Send and receive Hotmail on your mobile device: http://mobile.msn.com