bu'a: Difference between revisions
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
mNo edit summary |
m (Text replace - "jbocre: " to "") |
||
| (2 intermediate revisions by the same user not shown) | |||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
== ''su'o bu'a poi mi sanji ke'a zo'u dy. bu'a abu.'' as a va'i for mi djuno le du'u la djan. mokau la alis == | |||
*Suppose that what I know is that ''la djan prami la alis'', i.e. ''mokau'' above stands for ''prami''. Then, does this say: ''su'o prami poi mi sanji ke'a zo'u dy prami abu''? (I think ''bu'a'' is practically unusable, BTW) --[[User:xorxes|xorxes]] | |||
** ''You've proven with a reductio that su'o bu'a glosses as "at least one relationship" and not "at least one love". --xod'' | |||
'' | *** If ''su'o bu'a'' is "at least one relationship" then ''dy bu'a'' is "John is a relationship". (If ''bu'a'' stood for ''prami'' then ''su'o bu'a'' would be "one lover" rather than "one love". --[[User:xorxes|xorxes]] | ||
**** I believe it is simply different in a prenex than it is in the bridi itself. (Chapter 16, section 13). --mi'e [[.djorden.|.djorden.]] | |||
***** Yes, a very ad-hoc rule. But the book does not say what to make of ''su'o bu'a poi mi sanji ke'a''. Which sumti does ''ke'a'' stand for if not the x1 of ''bu'a'', which is what would normally be outside the prenex? Probably it means ''mi sanji le du'u bu'a'' or ''mi sanji le nu bu'a''. But I don't like such ad-hoc rules that break the harmony of the language, and I haven't seen convincing uses of ''bu'a'' that would justify putting up with this odd prenex behaviour. --[[User:xorxes|xorxes]] | |||
****** ''I was taking bu'a1 as the relationship, which is the only way to make sense of the su'o/prenex requirement. But then bu'a becomes an interesting sort of recursive brivla, where le bu'a = su'u bu'a, but that breaks the usage after the prenex. What's needed in the prenex, therefore, is su'o jai do'e bu'a, where do'e is taken as a recursion place in this context. How about games with su'o du'u bu'a? --xod'' | |||
'' | |||
* | |||
* | |||
* | |||
Latest revision as of 16:23, 23 March 2014
su'o bu'a poi mi sanji ke'a zo'u dy. bu'a abu. as a va'i for mi djuno le du'u la djan. mokau la alis
- Suppose that what I know is that la djan prami la alis, i.e. mokau above stands for prami. Then, does this say: su'o prami poi mi sanji ke'a zo'u dy prami abu? (I think bu'a is practically unusable, BTW) --xorxes
- You've proven with a reductio that su'o bu'a glosses as "at least one relationship" and not "at least one love". --xod
- Yes, a very ad-hoc rule. But the book does not say what to make of su'o bu'a poi mi sanji ke'a. Which sumti does ke'a stand for if not the x1 of bu'a, which is what would normally be outside the prenex? Probably it means mi sanji le du'u bu'a or mi sanji le nu bu'a. But I don't like such ad-hoc rules that break the harmony of the language, and I haven't seen convincing uses of bu'a that would justify putting up with this odd prenex behaviour. --xorxes
- I was taking bu'a1 as the relationship, which is the only way to make sense of the su'o/prenex requirement. But then bu'a becomes an interesting sort of recursive brivla, where le bu'a = su'u bu'a, but that breaks the usage after the prenex. What's needed in the prenex, therefore, is su'o jai do'e bu'a, where do'e is taken as a recursion place in this context. How about games with su'o du'u bu'a? --xod
- Yes, a very ad-hoc rule. But the book does not say what to make of su'o bu'a poi mi sanji ke'a. Which sumti does ke'a stand for if not the x1 of bu'a, which is what would normally be outside the prenex? Probably it means mi sanji le du'u bu'a or mi sanji le nu bu'a. But I don't like such ad-hoc rules that break the harmony of the language, and I haven't seen convincing uses of bu'a that would justify putting up with this odd prenex behaviour. --xorxes