Re: [tied] Re: o-grade thoughts

From: Brian M. Scott
Message: 45934
Date: 2006-09-04

At 5:46:37 AM on Wednesday, August 30, 2006, tgpedersen

> --- In, Piotr Gasiorowski
> <gpiotr@...> wrote:

>> On 2006-08-30 01:53, tgpedersen wrote:

>>> --- In, "Brian M. Scott"
>>> <BMScott@> wrote:

>>>> What is your evidence for original plurality rather
>>>> than the duration and/or intensity that the usage now
>>>> conveys?

>>> Partly logical: the idea is that a reduplicated verb
>>> stem (and its nominal derivates) would designate several
>>> occurrences of the type of event the root of the
>>> reduplicated stem designates. Duration and intensity are
>>> logically, as far as I can tell, derivative concepts of
>>> plurality (via the concept of repetition).

>> Brian and I asked for _evidence_, not for a preconceived
>> opinion.

> I don't think of reasoning from semantics as preconceived
> opinion.

Whether it is or not, it isn't *evidence* of anything except
the mental processes of the reasoner.


> 'Serial repetition' and 'simultaneous plurality' both
> denote a *set*, ie a collective of several occurrences,
> which may be sequential or simiultaneous among themselves.

If you want to play quasi-mathematical games, I'll point out
that mathematicians are careful to distinguish tuples from