[YG Conlang Archives] > [engelang group] > messages [Date Index] [Thread Index] >
On Mon, Aug 27, 2012 at 10:02 AM, And Rosta <and.rosta@hidden.email> wrote: > > As for anaphors, I'd use a pair of predicates meaning "co'e", one with and > one without a description argument as a syntactic complement. E.g. "xx-" is > "co'e", "is it", and "Xz" has the extra complement, "xza qa grka" (or > indifferently, "xza qo grko", "is the dog", where "q" is the ce'u quantifier > and "qa grka" means "the property of being canine". maybe you wouldn't > consider these anaphors, in which case I'm saying I don't see the need for > anaphors. Are you proposing to change the syntax of predicates from: predicate := CCC* V(‘V)* (( k | f | b ) V(‘V)*)* to: predicate := CCC* V(‘V)* (( k | f | b ) V(‘V)*)* (q V(‘V)*)* formula)? ? Does that add a property argument to a predicate? Or does the q-construct occupy one of the argument slots that could have been filled with a variable instead? Can the q-argument appear in other than final position? (Not without a terminator, because its formula would itself absorb any trailing variables.) > There's also the possibility of using stems like qam- (= 'am-), where qa- > introduces vowelless name stems, and the name is taken to refer to something > already referred to with a predicate starting with m- (ignoring any > name-introducing prefix), like Lojban my. In general you can refer to things with formulas, which may consist of more than just one predicate, so the bit about the initial needs some more clarification (as does in Lojban). But I'm not sure I follow the proposed syntax of qam- anyway. mu'o mi'e xorxes