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

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

Re: [engelang] Xorban Development



On Mon, Aug 27, 2012 at 9:04 PM, Jorge Llambías <jjllambias@hidden.email> wrote:
 

On Mon, Aug 27, 2012 at 4:17 AM, Mike S. <maikxlx@gmail.com> wrote:
> Noticing:
>
> da xrbna je lgja bnga "Xorban is the logical language".

*A* logical language, let's not be too immodest. That makes lgj
"logical" rather than a straight borrowing from Lojban.


> ... I had a passing thought. Perhaps we can set an implicitly bound
> variable:
>
> do'a xrbna

"do'a xrbno'a", right?

I was wondering that.  I am shaky on the d- rule.  For some reason, I thought the {predicate+args} as a whole was a name and thus meaningless, not that the CCC* part had any argument structure.  Maybe it makes more sense to repeat the variable being bound and not allow any marked arguments.  That's not in the production rules though.  In fact any formula could be a name. 

Either way, "xrbno'a" is the way to go, as the nativized name. It's anagrammatic.  If fact we could even say "lo'a xrbno'a" = Xorban.

 
> ... from xOrbAn. Then we can say things like:
>
> cV bngo'ake'e
>
> ... instead of:
>
> cV do'a xrbna bngo'ake'e.

I propose these to start with:

ce'a: I hereby permit
ce'e: I hearby exhort
ce'i: I hereby command
ce'o: I hereby request
ce'u: I hereby suggest
ce: I hereby direct (general purpose directive)

ce'e da xrbna bngake'e

These are good,  I assume that these will all be mapped to "la sma {formula}fa CCCa'aka"?  I haven't been following the illoc conversation closely.

 
> In the not-so-distant future, it will be important for this question to be
> as concise as possible.

Ah, I thought it was meant as an "e'osai ko sarji la lojban" sort of
motto. I like "cu" for yes/no questions:

cu da xrbna bngake'e

I'm not sure how serious you are about o'a, but when we get to "this
one" we can use that instead.

I was half serious.  It may prove useful.