- Home
- Get A Printable Dictionary
- Search Best Words
- Recent Changes
- How You Can Help
- valsi - All
- valsi - Preferred Only
- natlang - All
- natlang - Preferred Only
- Languages
- XML Export
- user Listing
- Report Bugs
- Utilities
- Status
- Help
- Admin Request
- Create Account
|
Discussion of "dau'o"
[parent]
[root]
Comment #1:
lo se cmavo
|
gleki (Sun Jul 24 06:39:12 2016)
|
looks more like another semantic subclass of UI (not attitudinal but grammatically the same maybe UI3a/UI3b), pei?
|
-
Comment #2:
Re: lo se cmavo
|
Curtis W Franks (Mon Jul 25 06:34:23 2016)
|
gleki wrote: > looks more like another semantic subclass of UI (not attitudinal but > grammatically the same maybe UI3a/UI3b), pei?
I thouht of that, but as far as I presently can conceive, it can only follow certian words. UI should be able to follow any word.
|
-
|
Comment #3:
Re: lo se cmavo
|
Curtis W Franks (Sun Sep 17 22:20:39 2017)
|
gleki wrote: > looks more like another semantic subclass of UI (not attitudinal but > grammatically the same maybe UI3a/UI3b), pei?
I am wondering whether I should just make this a PA. Currently "rodau'o" means something like "the number x such that x is all (of the relevant thing/the greatest count which is appropriate) and x >= 1.". In other words it means "ro" when "ro" is known or asserted to be at least one.
Could we just fit this meaning into "dau'o" alone (no "ro") and treat it as a vague number just as we do "ro" - it would, in fact, be equal to it (with an added assumption).
On the other hand, I was intending this to be used with "ro'oi" and other quantifiers/(vague) numbers too (particularly, if they do not automatically have existential import). Heck, even "xo'eidau'o" would mean something like "some number (of things) such that the number is at least 1 (meaning that the supposed things exist)"; actually, if other numbers count as specifying existence, then "xo'eidau'o" would potentially extend to them too, not just those greater than or equal to 1. But the plural logic is especially important; I am somewhat loath to multiply the number of all singular quantifiers by three (one for singular and existential, one for plural, and one for plural and existential) just so that this would be PA.
But making it PA does align well with something else which I am considering and which I think may be beneficial.
|
-
|
Comment #4:
Re: lo se cmavo
|
Curtis W Franks (Wed May 29 19:48:16 2019)
|
gleki wrote: > looks more like another semantic subclass of UI (not attitudinal but > grammatically the same maybe UI3a/UI3b), pei?
It does have the tripartite scale of UI though...
I could also see it operating as a sort of discursive. Again, though, the issue is that the things to which it can meaningfully and perhaps even grammatically attach are highly restricted.
What if we make it so that it can attach to whole constructs too and assert their existence/occurrence/truth (or - perhaps more usefully - abstain from/explicitly reject such existence/occurrence/truth according to and depending on the scale attached to this word's tail)? For example, I could say "lo mlatu cu klama ti dau'ocu'i .ijanaibo ri cliva ta" for "If the cat leaves there, then it is coming here (but I am not asserting that this coming is actually happening)". Likewise, "la .maik. kuje la .nykOl. dau'ocu'i cu klama" would mean something like "Mike and Nicole are going, if Nicole exists" (caveats: (1) This is not a logical 'IF' statement; (2) Mike may or may not be going alone; (3) I think that this statement would mean "Mike is going regardless of whether Nicole exists - but if she does, then she is going too", but I am not sure; (4) of course, they need not be going together in this construction; (5) I am assuming that "dau'ocu'i" is binding only to "la .nykOl." and not to the whole argument of "la .maik. kuje la .nykOl."). How do you feel about this?
|
-
|
|
|