[YG Conlang Archives] > [engelang group] > messages [Date Index] [Thread Index] >
On Thu, Aug 30, 2012 at 11:38 AM, And Rosta <and.rosta@hidden.email> wrote: > Jorge Llambías, On 30/08/2012 03:20: > > > > d is a binder for names (Lojban "la"), and m- was proposed as the > > quantifier "many" although we haven't said anything much about it yet. > > If it was me proposed "many", I meant it just as an example of a > fractional quantifier (along with "three out of every four" and so forth), > and because the range of fractions is openended, I had in mind a triadic > predicate "X% of things with property Y have property Z", or else a ternary > operator. I proposed m- without much thought. I will remove it until we see a more clear need for it. I agree it's better to handle it with a predicate. > As for d-, why is it not a unary operator, analogous to the new "ne", that > encodes that its [I really want to say "complement" here!] dependent is > onomastic? What happens to any free variables in its complement/dependent? Are they implicitly bound within the scope of "da", and thus unavailable for binding by another operator? That would seem to be what makes sense for names. So I think we could use "no" for the onomasticker, but I don't see how "ne" could work. mu'o mi'e xorxes