[YG Conlang Archives] > [engelang group] > messages [Date Index] [Thread Index] >
On Tue, Aug 28, 2012 at 12:13 AM, Mike S. <maikxlx@gmail.com> wrote:
> 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:
>> >
>> > 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.
Hmm, I think you're right, the whole formula under "dV should be
treated as logically unanalyzable.
>> 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)
>
> 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.
Yes, mapped to: "ca la sma (formula)fa CCCa'aka(ke'e)".
"ca" is needed to make it a hereby-statement rather than just a description.
mu'o mi'e xorxes