[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [lojban] {zo'e} as close-scope existentially quantified plural variable
Jorge Llambías, On 21/10/2011 22:55:
On Fri, Oct 21, 2011 at 8:52 AM, And Rosta<and.rosta@gmail.com> wrote:
Martin Bays, On 21/10/2011 05:12:
But {lo PA broda cu broda} is meant to be a tautology. Half-apples
aren't apples.
So {lo pi mu plise cu plise} fails that test, but {lo pi mu djacu cu djacu}
passes it.
What about:
lo pi mu grana cu grana
lo pi mu pluta cu pluta
lo pi mu girzu cu girzu
lo pi mu pagbu cu pagbu
lo pi mu namcu cu namcu?
I agree with you that the answers to these questions reside in the semanticon entries that the lexicon entries point to.
Following a line of thought that that observation initiates, I note that by
the Goatleg rule, {su'o plise} is okay but {su'o djacu} is not and would
instead have to be {za'u djacu} or {ci'i djacu}.
Instead of saying that all Lojban predicates are count, I'd rather say
that they are all mass, and that quantifiers induce an implicit
classifier on them, which is often context dependent.
As usual, I agree with you. So, as John said, adjectival glosses are generally preferable, out of context, to nominal ones, e.g. "is human" rather than "is a human".
--And.
--
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.