bridi to sumti converter: Difference between revisions
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
m (Conversion script moved page Bridi to sumti converter to bridi to sumti converter: Converting page titles to lowercase) |
No edit summary |
||
Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
Syntax: CONVERTER + BRIDI + (KEI) | Syntax: CONVERTER + BRIDI + (KEI) | ||
Hello? ''le su'u'' anyone? | *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. | |||
* ''le su'u'' = | *[[.djorden.|.djorden.]]: | ||
**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 <u>converter</u> 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'''. | |||
***[[User:And Rosta|And Rosta]] | |||
****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 <u>point</u> (even if not the "<u>use</u>") of such a device would be that there would be the possibility of a closer match between lexical form and logical form. | |||
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 | *****[[.djorden.|.djorden.]]: | ||
******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". | |||
* 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 | *******[[User:And Rosta|And Rosta]]: | ||
** 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". | ******** '''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. | ||
********* 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. | |||
** ''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. | ********** 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 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. | ***********[[.djorden.|.djorden.]]: | ||
************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...) | |||
*** 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). | *************[[User:And Rosta|And Rosta]]: | ||
**** I'm just pointing out that | ************** 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. | ||
**** 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. |
Revision as of 12:27, 15 May 2017
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.
- .djorden.:
- 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.
- And Rosta
- 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.
- .djorden.:
- 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".
- And Rosta:
- 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.
- 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).
- .djorden.:
- 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...)
- And Rosta:
- 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 Rosta:
- 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...)
- .djorden.:
- 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 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.
- 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 Rosta:
- 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".
- .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 Rosta
- 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.