Re: semisummary: countability

[JORGE JOAQUIN LLAMBIAS <jorge@INTERMEDIA.COM.AR>]

And:
>> 1) If {[piro] lei re valsi cu valsi} is true, then is {[piro] lei re
valsi}
>> a member of {lo'i valsi}?
>>
>> 2) If two words are wordage, is half a word wordage too?
>> i xu zoi gy thr gy cu valsi bau le glico
>
> My answer to (2) would be No: wordage
>contains at least one word, because half a word lacks the
>requisite properties (like having a sense and a selma`o).

If those are requisites, then {lu mi klama li'u} is not wordage,
because it has no selmaho. Also {lo'u mi pi ku klama ka cu le'u}
is not wordage because it has neither sense nor selmaho.

 >As for (1), I don't know. If you changed the example to pertain
>to {xekri} or {djacu}, the answer would be Yes. But I can't think
>of a principled reason for deciding it in the case of {valsi},
>{mlatu}, etc.

I would want {ro da poi valsi cu cmima lo'i valsi} to be true.
"Every x that is a word is a member of a set of words."

>I'm not so much seeking some kind of collective agreement on the
>answers to these questions as much as some kind of collective
>agreement on what the internally-coherent options are.

I agree. My feeling is that the {lei ci valsi cu valsi} option is not
consistent. For example, could I say:

                i mi tcidu lu ta plise li'u e zo ta e zo plise ti
                "I read {ta plise} and {ta} and {plise} here."

                i seni'ibo mi tcidu ci plise ti
                "Therefore, I read exactly three words here."

If I can't say that, then how do you logically expand {ci plise}
in a way that {lu ta plise li'u} is not a valid instantiation?

co'o mi'e xorxes