Re: semisummary: countability

[And Rosta <a.rosta@UCLAN.AC.UK>]

Jorge:
> >> 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.

{pi su`o lu mi klama li'u} and {pi su`o lo'u mi pi ku klama ka cu
le'u} have sense and selmaho. {pi su`o zo sp} doesn't.
I also think that {pi su`o zoi x. she has sp x.} is wordage, but
not {pi ro zoi x. she has sp x.}. But it is notoriously hard to
reason about these things.

> >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."

If you applied that to {djacu}, it would make {lo`i djacu}
infinite, even though there is only a finite amount of water.
Is that desirable? (Mind you, I think it's inevitable.)

I think I might prefer: {ro da poi ke`a me/du pa valsi cu
cmima lo`i valsi}.

> >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 [> valsi] ti
>                 "Therefore, I read exactly three words here."

No. At least not according to either of the options I defined.

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

On the "wordage option", counted things are single-words. So
"ci valsi" is 3 single words.


Anyway, I'm coming to think that the "single-word option", where
{pi ro lei ci valsi cu valsi} is false (even though {pi ro lei
ci djacu cu djacu} is true) is probably a bit more straightforward.

--And