bridi to sumti converter: Difference between revisions
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
mNo edit summary |
m (Text replace - "jbocre: " to "") |
||
Line 8: | Line 8: | ||
---- | ---- | ||
What would the use of a such a device be? Judging by the claim that LE is not a selbri to sumti converter (which I think it probably could be called), I'm guessing "converter" is being used with the suggestion that it has 0 specified semantic meaning other than the conversion. Which leads one to ask -- what's the semantics of these converted bridi? If you're looking for just taking the proposition made by the bridi into a sumti place you probably want ''le du'u''. --mi'e [[ | What would the use of a such a device be? Judging by the claim that LE is not a selbri to sumti converter (which I think it probably could be called), I'm guessing "converter" is being used with the suggestion that it has 0 specified semantic meaning other than the conversion. Which leads one to ask -- what's the semantics of these converted bridi? If you're looking for just taking the proposition made by the bridi into a sumti place you probably want ''le du'u''. --mi'e [[.djorden.|.djorden.]] | ||
* The semantics of the converted bridi would be identical to the semantics of the unconverted bridi. The difference would be purely syntactic and would allow a bridi to function as a sumti. Certainly some gadri + ''du'u'' gets you to where ''li ni'e du'u'' would. But (supposing the converter to be ''du'u'u''), ''du'u'' is defined in terms of ''du'u'u'': ''du'u'' = ''me du'u'u''. And the rest of NU are also defined in terms of ''du'u'u''. So the '''point''' (even if not the "'''use'''") of such a device would be that there would be the possibility of a closer match between lexical form and logical form. --[[User:And Rosta|And Rosta]] | * The semantics of the converted bridi would be identical to the semantics of the unconverted bridi. The difference would be purely syntactic and would allow a bridi to function as a sumti. Certainly some gadri + ''du'u'' gets you to where ''li ni'e du'u'' would. But (supposing the converter to be ''du'u'u''), ''du'u'' is defined in terms of ''du'u'u'': ''du'u'' = ''me du'u'u''. And the rest of NU are also defined in terms of ''du'u'u''. So the '''point''' (even if not the "'''use'''") of such a device would be that there would be the possibility of a closer match between lexical form and logical form. --[[User:And Rosta|And Rosta]] | ||
** Could you perhaps give an example sentence which uses this converter? I can't yet see how a bridi can function as a sumti just "syntactically". -mi'e [[ | ** Could you perhaps give an example sentence which uses this converter? I can't yet see how a bridi can function as a sumti just "syntactically". -mi'e [[.djorden.|.djorden.]] | ||
** ''du'u'u'' could occur wherever ''le/lo'e/tu'o du'u'' can, modulo any ongoing uncertainty about where exactly ''le/lo'e/tu'o du'u'' can occur. I don't see any difference between their meanings. --[[User:And Rosta|And Rosta]] | ** ''du'u'u'' could occur wherever ''le/lo'e/tu'o du'u'' can, modulo any ongoing uncertainty about where exactly ''le/lo'e/tu'o du'u'' can occur. I don't see any difference between their meanings. --[[User:And Rosta|And Rosta]] | ||
Line 17: | Line 17: | ||
*** The uncertainty is not about the semantics of du'u but about the semantics of sumti places that accept du'u sumti. As this is a discussion that has not yet happened, I won't harp on about it. All I really want is something that converts a bridi into a sumti, just as ''du'u'' converts a bridi into a selbri. If there were already a selmaho for that, this page would be redundant, because ''du'u'u'' could exist as an experimental cmavo (which you could happily ignore). | *** The uncertainty is not about the semantics of du'u but about the semantics of sumti places that accept du'u sumti. As this is a discussion that has not yet happened, I won't harp on about it. All I really want is something that converts a bridi into a sumti, just as ''du'u'' converts a bridi into a selbri. If there were already a selmaho for that, this page would be redundant, because ''du'u'u'' could exist as an experimental cmavo (which you could happily ignore). | ||
**** I'm just pointing out that "le du'u" already does this, regardless of whether you think it is sexy. It simply takes a proposition and treates as an argument to another relation (which of course is nonsensical if the relation doesn't expect a proposition as the argument, but anyway...) -mi'e [[ | **** I'm just pointing out that "le du'u" already does this, regardless of whether you think it is sexy. It simply takes a proposition and treates as an argument to another relation (which of course is nonsensical if the relation doesn't expect a proposition as the argument, but anyway...) -mi'e [[.djorden.|.djorden.]] | ||
**** Sure. No argument about this. The rationale for this proposal is to have a sexier language with the possibility of a closer correspondence between lexical and logical form. --[[User:And Rosta|And Rosta]] | **** Sure. No argument about this. The rationale for this proposal is to have a sexier language with the possibility of a closer correspondence between lexical and logical form. --[[User:And Rosta|And Rosta]] |
Revision as of 16:24, 23 March 2014
Syntax: CONVERTER + BRIDI + (KEI)
Hello? le su'u anyone?
- le su'u = "each of certain instances of an abstraction of an unspecified kind". This is not a bridi to sumti converter. NU is a bridi to selbri converter. LE is not a selbri to sumti converter. li ni'e du'u might work if the converters are purely syntactic in effect. But saying li ni'e du'u three or four times a sentence, just because the syntax contains no bridi to sumti converter, is rather irksome.
What would the use of a such a device be? Judging by the claim that LE is not a selbri to sumti converter (which I think it probably could be called), I'm guessing "converter" is being used with the suggestion that it has 0 specified semantic meaning other than the conversion. Which leads one to ask -- what's the semantics of these converted bridi? If you're looking for just taking the proposition made by the bridi into a sumti place you probably want le du'u. --mi'e .djorden.
- The semantics of the converted bridi would be identical to the semantics of the unconverted bridi. The difference would be purely syntactic and would allow a bridi to function as a sumti. Certainly some gadri + du'u gets you to where li ni'e du'u would. But (supposing the converter to be du'u'u), du'u is defined in terms of du'u'u: du'u = me du'u'u. And the rest of NU are also defined in terms of du'u'u. So the point (even if not the "use") of such a device would be that there would be the possibility of a closer match between lexical form and logical form. --And Rosta
- Could you perhaps give an example sentence which uses this converter? I can't yet see how a bridi can function as a sumti just "syntactically". -mi'e .djorden.
- du'u'u could occur wherever le/lo'e/tu'o du'u can, modulo any ongoing uncertainty about where exactly le/lo'e/tu'o du'u can occur. I don't see any difference between their meanings. --And Rosta
- I don't think there's any uncertainty about the semantics of du'u; but it sounds like all you really want is du'u, as I had theorized above.
- du'u'u could occur wherever le/lo'e/tu'o du'u can, modulo any ongoing uncertainty about where exactly le/lo'e/tu'o du'u can occur. I don't see any difference between their meanings. --And Rosta
- The uncertainty is not about the semantics of du'u but about the semantics of sumti places that accept du'u sumti. As this is a discussion that has not yet happened, I won't harp on about it. All I really want is something that converts a bridi into a sumti, just as du'u converts a bridi into a selbri. If there were already a selmaho for that, this page would be redundant, because du'u'u could exist as an experimental cmavo (which you could happily ignore).
- I'm just pointing out that "le du'u" already does this, regardless of whether you think it is sexy. It simply takes a proposition and treates as an argument to another relation (which of course is nonsensical if the relation doesn't expect a proposition as the argument, but anyway...) -mi'e .djorden.
- The uncertainty is not about the semantics of du'u but about the semantics of sumti places that accept du'u sumti. As this is a discussion that has not yet happened, I won't harp on about it. All I really want is something that converts a bridi into a sumti, just as du'u converts a bridi into a selbri. If there were already a selmaho for that, this page would be redundant, because du'u'u could exist as an experimental cmavo (which you could happily ignore).
- Sure. No argument about this. The rationale for this proposal is to have a sexier language with the possibility of a closer correspondence between lexical and logical form. --And Rosta