WikiDiscuss

On Wed, Dec 07, 2005 at 12:06:12PM -0300, Jorge Llamb?as wrote:
> On 12/7/05, Robin Lee Powell <rlpowell@digitalkingdom.org> wrote:
> > On Wed, Dec 07, 2005 at 11:55:13AM -0300, Jorge Llamb?as wrote:
> > > I take {gunma pa xunre dacti} to mean "consists of exactly one
> > > red piece", no other pieces of any kind. In other words, I
> > > take {gunma} to mean what you use {mulgunma} for.
> >
> > Then you need to take that up with the gismu list. Everyone on
> > IRC at the time I asked (except me) said that the x2 of gunma
> > need not be a complete specification.
>
> If it's not a complete specification, the "considered jointly"
> does not make a lot of sense.

I don't see a strong connection there.

{ly ly gy gunma mi joi la xorxes}, for example; is certainly true
that the LLG consists of you and I, considered jointly, but that is
not *all* it consists of.

For the record, I agree with you; when about 3 people all disagreed
with me simultaneously, I decided that that was clearly not the only
reading of the gismu list.

The problem with "vasru" is that a koan is not a container in any
obvious sense. Do you have any suggestions for a more specific way
to get at the "contains some things including X" without "joi lo
drata" ?

> > > if a koan ko'a consists of ko'e and ko'i, I would say:
> > >
> > > ko'a gunma ko'e joi ko'i
> > >
> > > "ko'a consists of ko'e and ko'i together"
> > >
> > > and not
> > >
> > > ko'a gunma ko'e .e ko'i
> >
> > You are, of course, correct that me usage of .e is wrong. Hardly
> > the first time.
> >
> > That doesn't mean that the x2 of gunma is a full specification,
> > though. Seperate issues.
>
> Not a separate issue. If a mere component is enough in x2, then
> the {.e} version is perfectly correct, since each of {ko'a gunma
> ko'e} and {ko'a gunma ko'i} would be true.

Yeah, I eventually realized that.

-Robin