[YG Conlang Archives] > [engelang group] > messages [Date Index] [Thread Index] >
On Mon, Aug 27, 2012 at 10:28 PM, And Rosta <and.rosta@hidden.email> wrote: > Jorge Llambías, On 28/08/2012 01:30: > > > > la xkra le mlte ltake > > Black ones of cats are a large proportion. > > I'd rather be able to do without the vagueness of l, so instead have > > qa mlta qe xkre ltake > "A large proportion of everything with the property of cathood has the > property of being black" I wonder if there is any distinction in the meanings of l- and q-, besides their glosses? > Alternatively, if qnt is quantifier and nmlt is "large proportion": > > lo nmltoqa mlta qe xkre qntokake Couldn't that be: qo nmlto qa mlta qe xkre qntokake or: lo nmlto la mlta le xkre qntokake ? > > What scope do you propose for an implicit s/z binding? > > Minimal. > > > If it's minimal scope, then a single reserved variable should > > suffice, > > suffice for what? For use. I mean you could use the same variable every time, since you couldn't use it correferentially in two predicates anyway "je bra cra" = je [(za) bra] [(za) cra], with independent variables. The only time you could use it correferentially is within the same predicate "craka" = "(za) craka", but then having two or three reserved variables for implicit minimal scope s/z-binding should be plenty. mu'o mi'e xorxes