Re: [lojban] Attitudinal scales and the meaning of {cu'i}

[Jorge Llambías <jjllambias@gmail.com>]

On Sun, May 16, 2010 at 7:46 PM, tijlan <jbotijlan@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>  In a case where "za'u re'u" means "za'u so re'u" for example,

"za'u re'u" means "za'u pa re'u". There is no case in which it means
"za'u so re'u", although in some case "za'u so re'u" could be true at
the same time.

> I thought "tu'o" was more like "zo'e" than "zi'o".

See: http://jbotcan.org/docs/cll/c18/s14.html

> "tu'o"s definition:
> non-specific/elliptical number. This doesn't necessarily mean a non-existing
> value, does it?

The full "deffinition" is: "digit/number: null operand (used in unary
operations); a non-specific/elliptical number."

So, yes, if you ignore the "null operand" part, it could be a
non-specific number. That's the kind of thing the BPFK is meant to
settle.

>Does "pa so so tu'o" mean "199[no number]" or
> "199[unspecific number]"? I think the latter. Hence "1990s", in my opinion.

I've seen it used like that, yes. But the 1990s is a whole decade,
while "199[some digit]" would be a single year, no? And if tu'o is a
non-specific number, why should it be used as a non-specific digit?

Things like "pa so so tu'o" to name a decade are better examples of
non-compositional lexicalization than the fully compositional "za'u
re'u".

mu'o mi'e xorxes

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "lojban" group.
To post to this group, send email to lojban@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to lojban+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/lojban?hl=en.