Re: [engelang] Xorban Development - engelang messages

On Mon, Aug 27, 2012 at 7:23 PM, And Rosta <and.rosta@hidden.email> wrote:

Mike S., On 25/08/2012 00:41:

> On Fri, Aug 24, 2012 at 12:03 PM, And Rosta <and.rosta@hidden.email <mailto:and.rosta@hidden.email>> wrote:
>
> Mike S., On 24/08/2012 03:13:
> >
> > There would be relatively little homonymy and no need for a kludge if
> > there were a way to transliterate names from the vast array of
> > natural languages with relatively little change. I gather that
> > transliteration is not a primary aim of the language, but
> > nevertheless I believe it would be useful and convenient for Xorban
> > speakers to have a relatively faithful and easy method of
> > transliteration. Using a designated phoneme like the glottal stop
> > (properly spelled) {'} would allow that. That way, recognizable words
> > like {'spageti'-}, {'betxoven'-}, {'joxanezberx'-}, {'kimono'-},
> > {'tiranosawrus'-} are possible that cause little need for fussing or
> > guessing. To xorbanize, simply drop/alter the vowels and drop
> > glottals -> spgt-, btxvn-, jxnzbrx-, kmn-, trnsrs- and
> > modify/compound if there is a collision with an existing predicate.
> >
> > Or, maybe the first {'} could be a CV as you suggested, and the
> > second {'} always preceded by a vowel. That would be a little longer,
> > but easier to pronounce.
>
> If <'> is an allograph of <q> (if <q> is /?/), that would indeed be a nice way of marking quotatives (i.e. mentioned linguistic material), and one function of quotatives could be, as you suggested, in a construction meaning "X is name of Y".
>
> Yes, <'> is /?/. I would say that name quotatives enclosing a name X
> produce a two-place name predicate expressible in metalanguage as
> "x"(y, z) which means "Y (is known as X to) Z".

OK. Let it also be the stem of a one-place-predicate such that "x"(y) means "y is the linguistic object x". Since argument suffixes can't be omitted, the number of argument suffixes serve to disambiguate the stem.

Glossing over the quotatives for a moment, that would make {la "djan"a} mean (in Lojban) {zo .djan.} instead of {la .djan.}. To get {la .djan.} you'd need {la "djan"ako'e}. Surely the latter, which we'll need much more often, should have the shorter form.*

The need for referencing the name is less urgent than in Lojban, because people can say {"djan"a'a} ="I am John" or {la prmaka'a "djani"a'aka}="I am 'Johnny' to my friends." Of course we do need to reference the name. How about:

CV1+ X + q = "x"(y, z) which means "Y (is known as X ending in vowel to) Z
CV2+ X + q = "x"(y, z) which means "Y (is known as X ending in cons. to) Z
CV3+ X + q = "x"(y) which means "Y (is the name X ending in vowel)
CV4+ X + q = "x"(y) which means "Y (is the name X ending in cons.)

*Moreover, I think that all elided trailing variables are implicitly "o'e", especially since no one has yet gone to the trouble of (re-)defining all the predicates that we are casually borrowing from Lojban and making up from English. So we don't even know what the predicate structures even are yet. But if variables are thought to be missing, then my guess is that they're "o'e". I don't think that dropping a variable changes the predicate!

> I saw you and Xorxe working on csna'e-type bindings last night, but I
> haven't figured it all out, but "what we're discussing" seems to
> match my idea for a set of assignable discourse topics.

Strictly speaking, definites needn't have already been directly discussed; rather, the hearer can identify which referent the speaker has in mind.