[YG Conlang Archives] > [engelang group] > messages [Date Index] [Thread Index] >
Mike S., On 30/08/2012 15:07:
On Thu, Aug 30, 2012 at 9:13 AM, And Rosta <and.rosta@hidden.email <mailto: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%40gmail.com> <mailto:and.rosta@hidden.email <mailto:and.rosta%40gmail.com>>> wrote:
> 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.
Given phrase [X.....Y], A in [X-fa....Y] will mean "the state of affairs in which [X...Y] is the case", i.e. it's basically just a way of converting [X...Y] into a predicate. If something has a meaning that can be the case, then you know what the fa version means. I think it would be neater to change fV from a suffix to a unary operator, so that instead of "la refa bcde fghe dscvra'aka", we'd instead have "la fa re bcde fghe dscvra'aka" (equivalent to "dscvra'akoi re bcde fghe").
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.
That's what I think fa essentially was doing, except it was behaving like a clitic, suffixing to the first word of the phrase that is its syntactic complement. Hence it is neater to convert fV into a unary operator with no clitic behaviour.
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"
I don't understand how that means what it's supposed to, unless the fa is conceived of as a clitic to the entire "re bcde fghe" phrase. --And.