[YG Conlang Archives] > [engelang group] > messages [Date Index] [Thread Index] >
On Fri, Aug 24, 2012 at 2:45 AM, Mike S. <maikxlx@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> In your latest it might be slightly clearer to rename things:
>
> sentence := illocutionary-operator? formula
> formula:= predicate | operator formula
That sounds good. I will also fix the binary-misnomer, and I will
change g- to b- for the added agent slot:
sentence:= illocutionary-operator? formula
formula := predicate | unary-operator formula | binary-operator formula formula
binary-operator:= ( l | d | r | s | m | j ) V('V)*
unary-operator := n V('V)*
illocutionary-operator := c V('V)*
predicate := CCC*V('V)* (( k | f | b ) V('V)*)*
V := a | e | i | o | u
C:= b | c | d | f | g | j | k | l | m | n | p | r | s | t | v | x | z
> I just thought we needed a variable like "o'e" that was always going to
> bound to the "l- sm-" constant. I suppose "e'u" doesn't hurt anything, but
> it seems to me that peoplishness is pretty implicit in ncl-x1, so I question
> the need to tap into V'V-space for "e'u".
OK, let's remove it for now. Then we have:
a'a implicitly bound by la'a mslfa'a
e'e implicitly bound by le'e rslfe'e
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
> You haven't yet stated what Xorban argument structures are going to be
> like, but I assume that slots will be defined judiciously. One or two in
> most cases; common slot-types added via -K- suffixes. Maybe change -k- to
> -t- versus -g-.
I kept -k- but changed -g- to -b- instead. There better not be too
many common slot-types because we are soon going to be running out of
consonants.
>> Yes, that's the idea. Schwas can be inserted at will between consonants.
>
> Are there going to be any rules on where they will be inserted in the
> "standard" dialect and how they will be written, metalinguistically if not
> otherwise? FWIW I prefer /mëlt-/ to /mlët-/ for "cat".
or even /mëlët-/. The schwa is not meant to be phonemic, so wherever
the speaker chooses.
>> > Some effort should be made so that changing one
>> > phoneme doesn't result in a valid root within a similar semantic
>> > category.
>>
>> Yes. Although with numbers, that's just what happens.
>
> If we are going by Lojban, p/b are pretty close, as are m/n and s/z.
> Probably should assign three new numbers, or bolster (some or all) numerals
> to CC.
That may be a good idea. maybe for now let's use the consonants from
Lojban's rafsi: pv, rl, cb, vn, mk* , xv, zl, bv, sz, ns*
(I changed mm and nn, since nnnn already for the hundreds seems a bit too much.)
> Should we start a dictionary? Perhaps we can put it up on that free wiki,
> keeping backups for safe keeping.
I might do that, if I can find where that wiki was.
mu'o mi'e xorxes