[YG Conlang Archives] > [engelang group] > messages [Date Index] [Thread Index] >
Jorge Llamb�as, On 24/08/2012 01:09:
On Thu, Aug 23, 2012 at 7:18 PM, And Rosta<and.rosta@hidden.email> wrote:{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?
Sure. I'd just meant that V'a would be an abbreviatory device, like the argument forms for "me" and "you", which also abbreviate predicates.
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.
I don't think the extra length (one consonant's worth) is worth it. Indeed *not* having unambiguous decomposition of compounds would be a good thing, because unambiguous decomposition creates the illusion that compounds have fully compositional meaning, when of course compounds with fully compositional meaning are completely pointless. --And.