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

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

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

Mike S., On 30/08/2012 04:00:





On Wed, Aug 29, 2012 at 9:10 PM, And Rosta <and.rosta@hidden.email <mailto:and.rosta@hidden.email>> wrote:


     > 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.
     >
     > ? Bafe<formula1> <formula2>= Ba sma Be<formula1>fe<formula2>fe
     >
     > Or does -fe attach to only one of the formulas?

    "Bafe bcda fgha djna'ake"
    "I know that Ba bcda fgha"


I would best-guess translate that "Ba bcda fgha... I know it."

I'm not sure that I like "Bafe" at all, but I am glad you've come around on the implicit restriction issue!



Ah, I got it wrong. What I meant was:

"le Bafe bcda fgha djna'ake"
"I know that Ba bcda fgha"

I didn't mean to endorse the implicit restriction thing, which I'll return to in another message.

--And.