Re: Quantifiers

[jorge@PHYAST.PITT.EDU]

la dilyn cusku di'e
> Right, "a scale to measure the property of how many --- are in the
> room" is a good translation of {lo ckilu be le ka xokau ke'a cu nenri
> le kumfa}.  But then you proceed to put masses of men on that scale.

Yes, you're right, this one is better with {lu'a} too.

> (This is an awfully pedantic point, admittedly.)

But it has to be made.  Not that we are going to be able to avoid sloppy
usage after all, but if we are discusing it, we better dot all the i's.

> It seems that sets might be slightly more appropriate, even given that
> John's going to lose :-), since you're not actually using any of the
> emergent properties of the mass.

Sets would not be wrong in that context, it's just that they aren't
necessary.  I consider the use of sets one step further of complication
with respect to masses.  If it can be said with masses, then using sets
is (in my book) bad style, an unnecessary abstraction.  The only case I
can think now for when sets may be unavoidable is for ordered sequences,
and that only because there is no analogue of ce'o for masses.  Sets are
fine for mathematics, I just don't think they have much to do in
non-maths conversation.

>  > If you mena {mi ckaji le ka ke'a dunda makau}, that would be "I am
>  > characterized by what I give/ what I give is characteristic of mi".
>  > With {klani}, I have no idea.
>
> Yes, I meant {ckaji}.
>
> But it seems like you may be using a different meaning of
> "characterize" than the one intended by the gismu list writers, one
> more appropriate to {steci}.  What do you think the English sentence
> means?  Is it the same as "what I give is particular to me"?

Well, in the sense that "you can identify me by what I give", not in
the sense that it's a property of me and nobody else.

> (I wouldn't necessarily require that uses of {ka} with and without
> {kau} appear in the same locations; as I pointed out, it doesn't
> happen with {du'u} in the first place of {facki}.  Just something to
> think about.)

Why not?

        mi facki le du'u le cukta cu cpana le jubme
        I discover that the book is on the table.

        mi facki le du'u makau cpana le jubme
        I discover what's on the table.

> My vague uneasiness still persists.  Your examples are very good, but
> I'd really like an _explanation_ of what's going on and what, exactly,
> the function of {kau} as you use it is.  (I'd like to see this for
> {du'u}, too, but no one's lobbying for change there.)  Alternatively,
> a gloss would do it.

I'd say it is the same meaning with {ka} and with {du'u}.  It
essentially means "the answer to this question".

> But any alternate way to say the sentences you mentioned, I suppose
> I'll just go ahead and use this syntax in the (somewhat unlikely)
> event I need to.

The uses with {du'u} are almost unavoidable, at least I find that I
can't avoid them.  The examples with {ka} are maybe more artificial, but
I think they it will end up being useful as well.

Jorge