[YG Conlang Archives] > [engelang group] > messages [Date Index] [Thread Index] >

[Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next]

Re: [engelang] Xorban Development



On Sun, Aug 26, 2012 at 8:13 PM, And Rosta <and.rosta@hidden.email> wrote:
 

Mike S., On 27/08/2012 00:44:


> I just wrote a long post on this. http://xorban.wordpress.com/2012/08/26/the-semantics-of-ju/

Doubtless I'm being obtuse (and maybe have overlooked certain crucial elements of previous discussion), but if ju has two arguments, why doesn't it just merge the eventifications of each argument into one? In other words, it would be equivalent to an eventification of je. (Indeed, why have {ju} at all? Why not just {jefa}?)


You're not obtuse.  The reasons are:

1. The grammar doesn't allow variables to be suffixed to operators.

2. If it were allowed, usually jefa would require "a" to be bound as "la sma jefa", which adds a lot of verbosity.

3. Also, the interpretation and transformation rule would have to be determined precisely in the same way ju would have to be.