History: Each of us must bring their own toothbrush

Source of version: 1 (current)

''denci lumci tutci sevzi bo sabji'' (That's not cutting the Gordian knot, that's running it through a paper shredder!) ---- Solved problem; see ((The Book)), Chapter 16, example 5.7: *ro da poi me ma'a zo'u: da bilga lenu bevri le denci lumci tutci po da reducing to *ro da po'u ma'a bilga lenu bevri le da denci lumci tutci but not *ro ma'a bilga lenu bevri le ma'a denci lumci tutci and not *ro ma'a bilga lenu bevri le ri denci lumci tutci -- nitcion ''I disagree. I think those last two are a nice and concise way of saying what we want. In addition, you can add:'' * ''ro ma'a bilga le nu bevri le vo'a denci lumci tutci'' -- ((Adam)) And here we come to the crux of the problem. Does an anaphor repeat its antecedent's number? I don't see how it can't. And it's not the toothbrush ''pe ro ma'a'' -- nitcion. ''Why should it repeat the number? It works just like "da":'' * ''ro da cu bilga le nu bevri le da tutci'' * ''ro ma'a cu bilga le nu bevri le vo'a tutci'' ''I have no idea what kind of distinction you're trying to make between "le denci lumci tutci pe mi" and "le denci lumci tutci po mi". I don't know about you, but __I__ don't use other people's toothbrushes. -- Adam'' * Ah, but Adam, you have to be explicit, and not hide behind ''vo'a''. Can you say ''ro ma'a cu bilga le nu bevri le __ma'a__ tutci''? (You imply so in your first response.) And if not, and this means something different from ''ro ma'a cu bilga le nu bevri le __vo'a__ tutci'', __how__ is it different? ** Yes, ''ma'a'' would mean the same thing. I used ''vo'a'' because it's more general, and because there is a tiny possibility that I might be refering to a different ''ma'a'', but it's highly unlikely. * If we start introducing real-life context into this, we give up on rigour. Plausibility would also allow us to drop all our terminators; that doesn't mean we should. You may not use other people's toothbrushes, but you should be able to ''say'' that you do. So that particular objection is bogus. (But the distinction I'm appealing to, in any case, isn't pe/po, it's mi/ma'a.) ** If there's no distinction to make (and there probably isn't in this case), then ''pe'' and ''po'' are equally correct. When there's a contrast, you can use ''pe'' and ''po'' (or you could use a paraphrase for ''po''). At any rate, there's no distinction as far as we can tell in this case, so there's no need to be over specific. * Can ''le mi'o panzi'' be the offspring of us, jointly, or our respective offspring, or both depending on context? I guess I'm interpreting ''mi'o'' as only ''mi joi do''. I'm reticent, in any case, to believe that ''mi'o'' (or for that matter ''vo'a'') operates just like ''da'', and drops the quantification on anaphoric use. ** ''mi'o'' can be either ''mi joi do'' or ''mi .e do'' (to disambiguate I would say quantify it with ''piro'' or ''ro'', respectively). So let's say that there are two referents of the sumti (''a'' and ''b''). With ''mi joi do'': Both ''a'' and ''b'' are offspring of both of us jointly. With ''mi .e do'': More complicated, but I think it means that: ''a'' is the offspring of ''mi'' and ''a'' is the offspring of ''do'' and ''b'' is the offspring of ''mi'' and ''b'' is the offspring of ''do''. Of course, in this case there's not much of a difference between being an offspring both ''x'' and ''y'' individually as opposed to jointly, but there would be differences in other cases. * This is probably messy enough to take to the list, no? -- nitcion ** If you want, but I think we recently agreed there that you're wrong about the ''vo'a'' issue. :) ** *smile* Different ''vo'a'' issue, of course, and I was really only doing devil's advocate anyway... * ''le mi'o panzi'' ** First, I protest your malglico use of an implicit ''pe''. If you mean ''le panzi be mi'o'', __please__ say that. ***''*shrug* To my mind, le mi'o panzi is completely and utterly the same thing as le panzi pe mi'o, so just assume I said that.'' **** I meant using __pe__ (implicit or not) instead of __be__ when you mean __be__. ---- * ei ro da po'u ma'a bevri le da denci lumci burcu ____ * ''ro ma'a goi ko'a bevri lo ko'a denci lumci tutci'' (ignoring the ''bilga'' because I can't be bothered to look up the place structure) --((And)) ** ''What does assigning a ko'a add? --Adam'' ** ''ko'a'' is assigned separately to each member of ma'a. In contrast, an ordinary anaphoric reference with ''ro ma'a'' as antecedent will requantifiy over the members of ''ma'a'' (according to xorxes and me). *** But you didn't requantify ''ko'a''. ''ro ko'a'' would requantify over the members of ''ko'a'' also.