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

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

Re: [engelang] Xorban multivar bindings; "complements"



On Wed, Aug 29, 2012 at 8:14 PM, Jorge Llambías <jjllambias@hidden.email> wrote:
 

On Wed, Aug 29, 2012 at 11:04 AM, Mike S. <maikxlx@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> lake ptfake tvlake
>
> = la sma le ptfake tvlake.
> "Something, the one fathered by that, he talks to them."
> "Someone talks to the one whom he is the father of."
[...]

> So, unless I'm missing something, Bake is a equivalent to "Ba sma Be".
> Not strictly needed, but a useful tool whenever two variables have
> restrictions using different arguments in the same formula.

...and both are bound by the same type of binder.

Yes.  And to be clear I am not proposing a grammar change for this, just observing that it's possible.  I don't think we need it.

 
What about when f- or b- are used instead of k-. Unless k- is put in a
separate selma'o from the others, they should have meaning too. I
can't quite see anything useful for them though.

I don't either.  But the production rules are already pretty loose; what does suffixing to predicates two -fX or five extra -kX mean?  There's a good chance the interpretation of superfluous args will be either "no effect" or "override previous".
 

? Bafe <formula1> <formula2>= Ba sma Be <formula1>fe <formula2>fe

Or does -fe attach to only one of the formulas?

Hmm, maybe Bafe does the same thing as Bake. "k/f/b" are just variable separators to binders aren't they?

I don't think the meaning of event-interpreted Bafe is very clear.  IMO it makes more sense to suffix -fX to the first JV of the restriction or predication when necessary.