[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 Thu, Aug 30, 2012 at 9:13 AM, And Rosta <and.rosta@hidden.email> wrote:
 

Mike S., On 30/08/2012 13:43:


> On Thu, Aug 30, 2012 at 7:59 AM, And Rosta <and.rosta@hidden.email <mailto:and.rosta@hidden.email>> wrote:
>
> Mike S., On 30/08/2012 03:54:
>
>
> > what does suffixing to predicates two -fX or five extra -kX mean?
>
> Multiple -fX are probably vacuous, unless we can think of something useful for them. Five extra -kX changes the predicate into one with arity n+5.
>
>
> > I don't think the meaning of event-interpreted Bafe is very clear.
>
> Bafe = E is a state of affairs in which Ba... is the case.
>
>
> That's not clear. There are at three possible interpretations for that _expression_.
>
> 1. Bafe Ra Pa => Ba Rafe Pa
> 2. Bafe Ra Pa => Ba Ra Pafe
> 3. Bafe Ra Pa => Ba Rafe Pafe

I think there's essentially only one possible interpretation, and that's the one that's consistent with the meaning of Ba. On the whole, I'd say that by default, none of 1--3 is valid.

It seems to me that it's not so much that there *is* an a interpretation.  It's more that in exploring the production rules the language designers are trying to *create* an interpretation for something that is or might be made a valid production.
 

For example, given the predicate "X discover Y to the case", "la refa bcde fghe dscvra'aka" entails neither "la bcdo'efa dscvra'aka" nor "la fgho'efa dscvra'aka" .

I was going to ask for an examples (in Eng or Xb) in which it does not entail "la re bcde fghefa dscvra'aka", but now I think I see the difference you are intending.

I have to confess, I find suffixing quantifiers with event arguments as a means of making the corresponding proposition an argument so utterly rebarbative that I would flatly refuse to use it.  Most languages would just stick the sentence in the place of an object, possibly marking it with a particle.  There has to be a better way of doing it, even if involves some sort of periphrasis.

lu la re bcde fghefa prpzcnuka dscvra'aku.
"I discover the proposition of the event in which all bcd are fgh.
"I discover that all bcd are fgh"

Better yet, "dscvr" and similar predicates can be glossed to mean "discover the proposition described by event".  There's no need to make all sorts of fussy NU distinctions in the syntax.  Generally speaking, Xorban predications are going to have f-suffixes.  Might as well make use of them.  And dear God, please have mercy and burn Bafe with fire.