[YG Conlang Archives] > [engelang group] > messages [Date Index] [Thread Index] >
Jorge Llamb�as, On 29/08/2012 02:16:
On Mon, Aug 27, 2012 at 10:28 PM, And Rosta<and.rosta@hidden.email> wrote:Jorge Llamb�as, 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?
What's the difference between s- and l-? But I'm willing to entertain, for the time being, the idea of l- and q- being equivalent.
Alternatively, if qnt is quantifier and nmlt is "large proportion": lo nmltoqa mlta qe xkre qntokakeCouldn't that be: qo nmlto qa mlta qe xkre qntokake
Yes
or: lo nmlto la mlta le xkre qntokake
OK. I'm loads happier with l- if it is equivalent to q-.
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.
You could use it coreferentially for two arguments of the same predicate, tho I accept that there might be a rule that requires explicit binding for that purpose. Given that arguments aren't elidable, one will often have to insert them for purely syntactic reasons, so one wants them to be as short as possible.
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.
If the reserved variables are from the set {a, e, i, o, u, y, (ai, au, eiu, oui)}, i.e. the shortest, then I guess I'd be satisfied.
I'm still not happy with the proposal for the interpretation of unreserved unbound variables, but I so far haven't come up with a better solution that is consistent with head-first syntax and incremental parsing (or, for that matter, one that is consistent with head-last incremental parsing). Maybe an unbound variable should force a switch to head-last syntax until the syntagm is complete -- that would work.
--And.