History: Bridi to sumti converter

Source of version: 1 (current)

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)) ** 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)) *** 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. *** 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.)) **** 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))