Theiling Online    Sitemap    Conlang Mailing List HQ   

Re: Tagalog 'modifying' construction

From:Ray Brown <ray.brown@...>
Date:Monday, May 16, 2005, 17:39
On Sunday, May 15, 2005, at 07:54 , Chris Bates wrote:
> ................ However, ang doesn't specify the entire set, > does it? It instead indicates that one member of the set is being > referred to.
You are right. I expressed the question very poorly. Mea culpa! I should have rephrased it thus: It occurred to me that another interpretation is possible. That _na_ is not just a 'linker', but is more specifically the 'intersection operator'. That is it is not a question of either - (a) a small specimen of the class of animals or - (b) an animal-like specimen of the class of small things. Rather it is (c) a member of set formed from the intersection of {the set of small things}{the set of animals}. That would surely explain quite simply why we may have _hayop na maliít_ or _maliít na hayop_ without any difference of meaning. The specifier _ang_ specifies a member of the set resulting from the application of the intersection operator. Still just a thought :) Ray =============================================== =============================================== "A mind which thinks at its own expense will always interfere with language." J.G. Hamann, 1760
>> >> > >