I have four quibbles with the definition as-presented.

(1) A small one: I dislike the "x_1" appearing here. I would just use "x"
or a description such as "the referent of the immediately following
construct". Not a big deal though.

(2) Is that construct a selbri or a sumti or what? I think that "sumti"
makes the most sense as an answer (because it covers things as diverse as
"lo mlatu", "li ci", "lu mi klama li'u", and more), but I would then be
unsure of the selma'o for the word.

(3) When it says "composed of x1", it means "composed, at least in part,
of x1" – in other words, the sum is involving two input, at least one of
which is x1, and the other of which may not be specified (but may be x1) –
yes?

(4) I dislike the fact that this word ends with "y". To me, that implies
that it is the letteral for "gu" (which would be a relatively fine
letteral to have). I actually dislike "y" occurring in almost all except a
special class of cmavo, but I would prefer all "y"s to be strictly medial
unless they are for letterals. Also, out of curiosity, what is the
etymology for this choice?

Comment #2: Re: Four issues

Ilmen (Wed Feb 3 21:02:52 2021)

krtisfranks wrote: > I have four quibbles with the definition as-presented. > > (1) A small one: I dislike the "x_1" appearing here. I would just use "x" > or a description such as "the referent of the immediately following > construct". Not a big deal though. > > (2) Is that construct a selbri or a sumti or what? I think that "sumti" > makes the most sense as an answer (because it covers things as diverse as > "lo mlatu", "li ci", "lu mi klama li'u", and more), but I would then be > unsure of the selma'o for the word. I was not sure how to make the wording succint and simple. As the selma'o (NAhE) and use of the expression "predicate modifier" implies, gu'y is a prefix to a tanru-unit, like SE cmavo, although it can also be used in NAhE-BO constructions governing a sumsni. I could have opted for a mere SE selma'o, but I thought that allowing for the NAhE-BO construction would allow for some more flexibility in usage. Here is how I envision it being used: • gu'y bakni = "x1 is a herd of cows (of species x2)" • lo gu'y bakni = a certain herd of cows • mi pu viska gu'y bo le do bakni = "I saw the herd of your cows". > > (3) When it says "composed of x1", it means "composed, at least in part, > of x1" – in other words, the sum is involving two input, at least one of > which is x1, and the other of which may not be specified (but may be x1) – > yes? > The definition wording is assuming the semantics of Xorlo plural variables/constants, i.e. in "gu'y bo le do bakni", "le do bakni" would be a plural constant (which can be understood as a covert set) among which all your cows are. But the particle can be adapted to CLL lect by applying gu'y bo to whatever type gunma's x2 is expecting, be it a mathematical set (le'i bakni…) or whatever is the standard in the dialect at hand. > (4) I dislike the fact that this word ends with "y". To me, that implies > that it is the letteral for "gu" (which would be a relatively fine > letteral to have). I actually dislike "y" occurring in almost all except a > special class of cmavo, but I would prefer all "y"s to be strictly medial > unless they are for letterals. Also, out of curiosity, what is the > etymology for this choice? The word is etymologically based on gunma; I, too, am not overly fond of y-final cmavo, but I thought it would be of a greater phonological compatibility with gunma (with an unstressed final -ma) than gy'a for example (it is less easy to justify how a stressed -u- would transform into a -y-). The Lojban language already mandates that speakers should be able to discriminate unstressed -y- from unstressed -a-, compare for example cakyREspa with ca ka REspa, or mantyGAPci with a hypothetical mantaGAPci. I could reassign the cmavo to gy'a, but this won't remove the fact Lojban already requires the aformentioned -y/-a distinction.

Comment #3: Re: Four issues Ilmen (Wed Feb 3 21:04:08 2021) Also, the hypothetical letteral for gu would be gu bu. Comment #4: Re: Four issues Curtis W Franks (Fri Feb 5 06:33:44 2021) Ilmen wrote: > Also, the hypothetical letteral for gu would be gu bu. Sure, but there have been some moves toward CV*'y format for such purposes.