From jjllambias@hotmail.com Tue Mar 12 10:14:13 2002 Return-Path: X-Sender: jjllambias@hotmail.com X-Apparently-To: lojban@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: unknown); 12 Mar 2002 18:14:13 -0000 Received: (qmail 86874 invoked from network); 12 Mar 2002 18:14:11 -0000 Received: from unknown (216.115.97.172) by m9.grp.snv.yahoo.com with QMQP; 12 Mar 2002 18:14:11 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO hotmail.com) (216.33.240.75) by mta2.grp.snv.yahoo.com with SMTP; 12 Mar 2002 18:14:11 -0000 Received: from mail pickup service by hotmail.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC; Tue, 12 Mar 2002 10:14:11 -0800 Received: from 200.49.74.2 by lw8fd.law8.hotmail.msn.com with HTTP; Tue, 12 Mar 2002 18:14:11 GMT To: lojban@yahoogroups.com Bcc: Subject: Re: [lojban] More about quantifiers Date: Tue, 12 Mar 2002 18:14:11 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed Message-ID: X-OriginalArrivalTime: 12 Mar 2002 18:14:11.0641 (UTC) FILETIME=[B5BC6A90:01C1C9F1] From: "Jorge Llambias" X-Originating-IP: [200.49.74.2] X-Yahoo-Group-Post: member; u=6071566 X-Yahoo-Profile: jjllambias2000 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