Re: demuan identifiers re-visited

Fabian wrote:
>
> > > This nene/nener distinction is rather vague, and there is no possible
> > > distinction for lama/lamer. I think I will drop lama from teh vocabulary
> > > entirely, which is a shame, as I am fond of that word.
> >
> >         Don't do this! It is normal that there be no distinction between
> lama
> > and lamer, as it seems that the meaning of lama gives no place to
> > plural. So just make it an exception or, if you don't have exceptions,
> > and don't want to have them, remove it from the quantifier subgroup. By
> > the way, how do you use it normally? I can't understand why you put it
> > into the quantifier subgroup.
>
> Ok, you persuaded to explain my identifiers in long boring detail ;)
>
> Incidentally, lama ended up in teh quantifier group by default, as it
> certainly wasn't any of teh other items. It is kind of like bama, in that
> teh essential meaning is 'all', but while bama refers to 'all the ones being
> discussed', lama refers to 'all the ones in existance'.
>
> bama kot - the entire cat
> bamer kot - all of the cats
> lama kot - all cats
>
> I guess lama is intrinsically plural in meaning, but with a singular
> morphology.
>
        I can understand why. It refers to "all things in existence" as a whole
united group that behaves like one. This could be an explanation of its
singular morphology.

> --- The Big List ---
[snipped for the sake of place, but read interestingly]

        It seems that we've got some ideas in common. Your list seems to
resemble my list of "definite suffixes" for my New Personal Language. Do
you want me to share? (I ask before, as it seems that my posts about my
new project are so boring :) ).

>
> lama          the general concept of X
>
> lama is used in such sentences as "Do bears crap in the woods?" A partial
> Demuan translation of that would be:
>
        In French, we use the definite article for that. That's what I do also
in my NPL. But the idea of using another adjective for that is great.

> lama [bear] [crap] il lama [forest] ee?
>
> If you used ja [forest] here, it would refer to a specific forest, and a
> bare [forest], for indefinite singular, would refer to a single unspecified
> forest. Methinks 'lama' really is in a class of its own.
>
        I think so. Its morphological behaviour and its semantic field are much
different from other quantifiers. Maybe it could be considered as an
article, a kind of "generalizing article", a third step in the scale
indefinite-definite. But maybe your articles can't be two syllables
long. What do you think of it?

> ---
> Fabian
> I know you understand what you thought I said,
> But I'm not sure you understand that what you
> thought I said is not what I meant to say.
--
        Christophe Grandsire

        Philips Research Laboratories --  Building WB 145
        Prof. Holstlaan 4
        5656 AA Eindhoven
        The Netherlands

        Phone:  +31-40-27-45006
        E-mail: grandsir@natlab.research.philips.com