[YG Conlang Archives] > [engelang group] > messages [Date Index] [Thread Index] >
On Thu, Aug 23, 2012 at 9:28 PM, And Rosta <and.rosta@hidden.email> wrote: > > 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. OK. Let's introduce the predicates "mn" "x1 is/are among x2" (sort of like Lojban "me") and "csn" from "casnu". Then we have so far: a'a implicitly bound by la'a mslfa'a e'e implicitly bound by le'e rslfe'e e'u implicitly bound by le'u prne'u o'e implicitly bound by lo'e smo'e a'e implicitly bound by la'e je mna'aka'e mne'eka'e V'i implicitly bound by lV'i csna'ekV'i (I changed V'a to V'i because a'a was already taken.) > > 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. All right, no -z- for now then. mu'o mi'e xorxes