[YG Conlang Archives] > [engelang group] > messages [Date Index] [Thread Index] >
On Thu, Aug 23, 2012 at 7:18 PM, And Rosta <and.rosta@hidden.email> wrote:
>
> I would have names be syntactically/semantically ordinary predicates. What
> distinguishes them from other predicates is their limitless homonymy, so it
> would be good to have a way of marking them, e.g. by some initial CV.
We still have "ne" and "no" free as unary operators, or we could use a
new binding operator instead (like Lojban's "la"). Probably this is
the best course since names are rather frequent. So I will assign "d-"
as the name equivalent of "l-". "da djna de rtcrde drxake", "John hits
Richard". (Any sentence can be used as a name.)
> {zo'e} is a terrible idea, because it's so unhelpfully vague. But a V'V
> for "le co'e" -- "him/her/it/them" might be a good idea. Maybe the rule
> would be that V'a is interpreted as a definite reference unless explicitly
> bound.
Is there any way to introduce definiteness through a predicate rather
than a variable? I would be happier if we could say that V'a is
implicitly bound by lV'a brV'a for some meaning of the predicate br.
Could we have "x1 is what we've been/are talking about" or something
like that?
> Let compounds be merely a concatenation of the stems. It doesn't matter
> if, say, CCCC is ambiguous between CC+CC and CCCC, or CCCCC between CC+CCC
> and CCC+CC: compounding would be a purely mnemonic way of forming novel
> predicates, derivationally translucent.
Yes, but I was also thinking of using -z- as a kind of Lojban zei, for
more explicit compounding. In that case "z" could be avoided, though
not prohibited, in ordinary roots.
mu'o mi'e xorxes