WikiDiscuss

WikiDiscuss


BPFK Section: gadri

A> I confess that I have trouble in casual reading to remember what exactly is the difference between a group of seven broda and a heptad of broda. It is the external quantifier that makes the difference, whether it is partitive or repetitive: is {ci lo ze broda} three out of the one group of seven broda or three broda heptads. I am also not sure which is the more useful. Are there stats on this? But it is clear that we can get broda heptads with the present system (or this minor modification); how do we get partititves from the heptad system(I am sure there is a straightforward way of doing it, I just don't see it off hand).

B> This remarks makes it seem that the proposed {lo} is {lo3}, whereas others more or less force {lo2}. Maybe the notion is not quite as simple as rabspir thinks.
Jorge LlambĂ­as <jjllambias2000@yahoo.com.ar> wrote:

pier:
> MEGO! I am lost trying to make sense of intensions, Mr. Rabbit, and the like.

Don't worry about it. The definitions on the page should stand on
their own.

> I think {lo} should remain as it is, with these possible changes:
> 1. Currently {ze lo ze bidju} means "seven of the only seven beads that
> exist". This meaning of the use of the inner quantifier is rarely needed, so
> it should be dropped. If you want to say that there are only seven beads in
> the world, say {lo ro ze bidju}. {ze lo ze bidju} then means "all of a group
> of seven beads", not "seven groups of seven beads each", which requires
> {zemei}. {mu lo vo tadni} is nonsense.

A>It seems to me that the use of inner quantifiers you propose is
only slightly less rarely needed than the current one. Perhaps you
could give some examples (preferably natural sounding) of how
it would be used.

> 2. With some predicates, {lo broda} has to refer to something which may not
> exist. For instance, {la katr,in. kartrait.djonz. me'andi skagau le degji
> jipno .imu'ibo claxu lo jgalu}. She's missing the left index nail; it wasn't
> removed from her, it never formed. So {lo zunle ke jarco degji jgalu be
> kykydy} has no referent, and yet she claxu it. Thus {claxu} implies that its
> x2 may be {da'i}; if you need to say that the thing lacked does in fact
> exist, say {da'inai}.

B>I have no problem with {la katr,in. kartrait.djonz. me'andi skagau
le degji jipno .imu'ibo claxu lo jgalu}. As far as I'm concerned
that's perfectly fine with the proposed {lo}.

mu'o mi'e xorxes





__
Do you Yahoo!?
Friends. Fun. Try the all-new Yahoo! Messenger.
http://messenger.yahoo.com/