Le lundi 24 février 2014 10:38:21 UTC+9, xorxes a écrit :
On Sun, Feb 23, 2014 at 2:07 PM, guskant
<gusni...@gmail.com> wrote:
You give {su'o pa mei} to all the referent that are individual(s) of a universe of discourse,
No, not just individuals. Everything and anything satisfies "su'o pa mei", including any non-individuals that there may be in the universe of discourse..
Sorry, you are right, though {ro'oi da su'o pa mei} + (D1) (D2) (D3) excludes non-individual referents from expressions with {N mei} and {lo N broda}.
I correct my sentence as follows:
You give {su'o pa mei} to all referents of a universe of discourse,
while I give {su'o pa mei} to certain members of it, not to all.
while I give {su'o pa mei} to certain members of it, including non-indiviidual members, not to all.
But why? Why do you want some things not to satisfy "su'o pa mei" which basically should mean "x1 is/are something(s)"? You still haven't explained why you want to define "su'o pa mei" in such a particular way.
It is for the purpose of giving expressions with {N mei} and {lo N broda} to non-individual referents.
Even if speakers regard {lo nanba} as non-individual, they may want to use {N mei} to a particular referent of {lo nanba}, because the expressions of {N mei} and {lo N nanba} are useful for giving a mapping from an order of quantity into transitivity of {me}. These expressions facilitate comparison of quantity between {ko'a me lo nanba} and {ko'e me lo nanba} without using other unit than what is defined by speakers.
Using {ke'a}, our definitions are described as follows:
(D1) ke'a su'o N mei := su'oi da poi me ke'a ku'o su'oi de poi me ke'a zo'u ge da su'o N-1 mei gi de na me da
(D2) ke'a N mei := ke'a su'o N mei gi'e nai su'o N+1 mei
(D3) lo PA broda := zo'e noi ke'a PA mei gi'e broda
When (D1) and (D2) are applied to a particular sumti, ke'a are replaced with it. As for (D3), ke'a is in noi-clause, and it is already fixed to zo'e, and is not replaced with another sumti, of course.
Because (D1-7) defines only for {ko'a}, (D1) (D2) (D3) are valid only for sumti that involves a referent of {ko'a} such as {ko'e noi ko'a me ke'a}, {ko'i no'u ko'a jo'u ko'o} etc. (D1) (D2) (D3) are not used for other sumti unless (D1-7) is applied to one of the referents that is involved by the sumti.
If D1-7 defines only for ko'a, then it is not necessarily valid for ro'oi da poi me ko'a. You need "ro'oi da poi me ko'a cu su'o mei" if you want it to be valid for anything among ko'a. But that won't make it valid for ko'a jo'u ko'o if something in ko'o is not in ko'a.
No. When (D1-7) defines for {ko'a}, the referent of {ko'a} satisfies {su'o pa mei} _non-distributively_.
Any other referents that are {me ko'a} do not satisfy {su'o pa mei}.
You don't know, that's not part of D1-7. If that's what you want, then you need something like:
(D1-8) ke'a su'o pa mei := ke'a du ko'a
Now you would have a full definition, and we would know that only ko'a satisfies "su'o pa mei", while everything else doesn't.
With (D1-7) as is, we know that ko'a satisfies "su'o pa mei" but we have no way of knowing whether anything else does.
(D1-7) ko'a su'o pa mei
with (D1) (D2) will make {ko'a jo'u ko'e su'o pa mei} true. (D1-8) contradicts it.
As for (D1-7), speakers who talk about non-individual referents may select not only {ko'a} but also any arbitrary {ko'e} {ko'i}... as {su'o pa mei} as long as the selected referents don't conflict each other.
(D1-7) is only a sample for discussion. Speakers arbitrarily select referents to be {su'o pa mei}, not only {ko'a}.
In other words, (D1-7) gives a subjective unit to non-individual referents. If you don't call it definition, you may exclude it from a set of definitions on {N mei}. In any case, the meaning of {su'o pa mei} is entrusted to speakers, and it is not necessarily {ro'oi da su'o pa mei}.
Defining {su'o pa mei} involves giving a unit to a set of referents that are related with transitivity of {me}. I want to let speakers have the right to define a unit.
For example, suppose that a speaker regards {lo nanba} is non-individual:
ro'oi da poi me lo nanba ku'o su'oi de poi me lo nanba zo'u de me da ijenai da me de
That is, the speaker regards a half of {lo nanba} is also {me lo nanba}.
Yes.
Even though there is no individual {lo nanba}, an _expression_ {N mei} is available with (D1-7) (D1) (D2) (D3).
No:
"lo nanba cu su'o pa mei" is true
"lo nanba cu su'o re mei" is true
"lo nanba cu su'o ci mei" is true
I call them {lo nanba xi re} and {lo nanba xi ci} respectively for convenience.
But it's the same "lo nanba"!
lo nanba cu su'o pa mei gi'e su'o re mei gi'e su'o ci mei gi'e ..." is true.
It cannot be true when
(D1-7} lo nanba cu su'o pa mei
is defined to {lo nanba}.
In the definition
(D1) lo nanba cu su'o re mei := su'oi da poi me lo nanba ku'o su'oi de poi me lo nanba zo'u ge da su'o pa mei gi de na me da
{da su'o pa mei} is true only for the referent of {lo nanba} used in (D1-7), that is, {lo nanba} itself, and it satisfies {su'o pa mei} _non-distributively_. The other referents in the domain of {da poi me lo nanba} do not satisfy {da su'o pa mei}.
With the definition you gave, there's no way of knowing what else besides "lo nanba" will satisfy "su'o pa mei". If you mean something like (D1-8) instead of (D1-7) then yes, "lo nanba cu su'o re mei" will be false, and "lo nanba cu pa mei" will be true. "mi pa mei" will also be false, "mi jo'u do re mei" will be false, and so on. How can you possibly justify a definition like that for these predicates? They end up meaning nothing like "is one", "are two", "are three", and so on.
Those definitions, with either (D1-7) or (D1-8), just don't make any sense to me. With (D1-7) it's not even a complete definition.
I will stick with these (using "ko'a" as a place-holder):
(D0) ko'a su'o pa mei := su'oi da me ko'a
(D1) ko'a su'o N mei := su'oi da poi me ko'a ku'o su'oi de poi me ko'a zo'u ge da su'o N-1 mei gi de na me da [N>=2]
(D2) ko'a N mei := ko'a su'o N mei gi'e nai su'o N+1 mei [N>=1]
(D3) lo PA broda := zo'e noi ke'a PA mei gi'e broda
The meaning of {su'o pa mei} with (D1)(D2)(D3) gives a subjective unit that is not necessarily regarded as an individual. It depends on context, and not defined for common use. I prefer leaving it as an undefined predicate, not restricted with {ro'oi da su'o pa mei}, neither (D0). A unit of counting is to be defined by speakers according to context.
Giving this vagueness to a unit is not strange. Even if a speaker regards {lo nanba} as an individual, selection of referent to be an individual depends on context. On the other hand, if a speaker regards {lo nanba} as non-individual, selection of referent to be a unit depends on context.