[YG Conlang Archives] > [engelang group] > messages [Date Index] [Thread Index] >
On Sat, Aug 25, 2012 at 3:25 AM, Mike S. <maikxlx@gmail.com> wrote: > On Fri, Aug 24, 2012 at 6:40 PM, Jorge Llambías <jjllambias@hidden.email> > wrote: >> >> 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 > > Okay. "a'e" is welcome; not quite sure how "V'i" works. I see the > binding, but how do "a'e" know exactly what "V'i" refer to? We can't know with absolute certainty, just as if we use the expanded form. But this is true of any referential expression. You can only insure absolute co-referentiality by staying within the same sentence. > 0 no -> n* > 1 pa -> p* > 2 duo -> dv* > 3 tres -> tr > 4 (made up) cf > 5 (made up) gl > 6 six... -> sk > 7 sieben -> zb > 8 acht -> xt > 9 novem -> vm > > 1000 ki'o -> kyo -> kc OK, sounds good. Adopted. mu'o mi'e xorxes