Re: A modest proposal #2: verdicality

["Dylan P. Thurston" <DPT@HUMA1.BITNET>]

mi cusku di'e
 > > This sounds good, although I'm still not sure {lo} must necessarily be
 > > verdical.  In some cases information must be inferred in the use of
 > > {lo}, as in your use of {lo cnino} I pointed out (unless that was a
 > > misuse); why not the meaning of the description?

la xorxes cusku di'e
 > Well, in that case it was veridical. It's true that in the context
 > it seemed to refer to "a new cmavo" instead of just any "something new",
 > but I could get away with it filling appropriately the {zo'e} places.
 > (Although I admit I wasn't thinking of that when I wrote it.)

Yes, I noticed that empty places could probably come to your rescue
(although I was thinking about the empty places of {cnino}, not {sarcu}:
{lo cnino be fi le ka se smuni lu.e'u mi'u li'u}).  (For reference, the
sentence was

        lo cnino na sarcu
later glossed as
        lo cnino na sarcu le nu basti lu e'u mi'o li'u)

I guess the intent is that all the hidden assumptions should be in the
empty places, though I'll need more experience to judge whether that's
really true.

 > > In any case, {ro da voi broda} seems odd.  There's explicitly a
 > > quantifier there.  Does the {voi} cancel it in some way?
 >
 > {ro da voi broda} is each of those broda I have in mind.
 > {[su'o] da voi broda} is at least one of those broda I have in mind.
 >
 > Just like:
 >
 > {ro da poi broda} is each of those that are broda.
 > {[su'o] da poi broda} is at least one of those that are broda.

Right, I forgot the {ro} cancels the implicit {su'o} of {da}.  I suppose
 {ro da noi broda}
is "everything (which all {broda})"; very few {broda} could fit in here...
 {[su'o] da noi broda}
is again "at least one of those that are broda", though there is a
difference: if {da} is used again, the second use of {da} must also
{broda}.

 > > What's an example of when you'd want to do this?  That is, can you
 > > think of a context in which {le broda cu broda} isn't true in any
 > > sense whatsoever?  That would seem extremely strange to me.
 >
 > Well, there is the classic example {le nanmu cu ninmu}, then it
 > would be true that {le nanmu na nanmu}, which means that
 > {le nanmu cu nanmu} is false. We could argue ad nauseum about
 > ...

Let me just make one point that may be new, without trying to start a
new discussion:  gender and (physical) sex are hardly as dualistic as
most people think they are (and as our culture constantly pushes on us).
Consider transvestites, transsexuals, and hermaphrodites.  Because of
those last, in particular, one might reasonably say {da cu nanmu je
ninmu je nimnau}.

But I'm sure one could come up with a better example, and...

 > However, if you want to think that {le} is always veridical, I'm not
 > going to disagree with you, since that is the case except in a set
 > of measure zero anyway.  :)

I think I'll just do that.  (A fellow mathematician at heart, I see.)

 > > OK, I think I understand now.  {poi} means subselection, while {noi},
 > > by providing more information, means definition (in an appropriate
 > > context, e.g., {da noi li'o} if {da} is going to be used again).  But
 > > if the variable {da} is not used again, the two are equivalent.
 >
 > Not really. {noi} is a comment, and can be taken out without changing
 > the quantification stuff. {da noi broda} makes a claim about some {da},
 > and a second incidental claim that that {da} is also a broda, but
 > the truth of the {noi} claim is independent of the main clause, whereas
 > with {poi} it is crucial in order to understand what the main clause
 > claims.

Well, yes, but because of the implicit existential quantification of
{da}, a {noi} clause ends up providing information crucial to
restricting the quantification and understanding the sentence; e.g., {da
noi nanmu cu te cimei} == "There are at least three men."

(Hmm.  I'm not sure how much sense that makes.  Does
        le xunre cukta .e le blabi cukta .e le blanu cukta cu te cimei
make sense?)

 > ... <explanation of voi deleted; thanks> ...
 > Jorge