[YG Conlang Archives] > [engelang group] > messages [Date Index] [Thread Index] >
On Thu, Aug 30, 2012 at 1:14 PM, Mike S. <maikxlx@gmail.com> wrote: > > Yes, let's definitely do this. Let's change "f-" to a unary operator, and > approve ju as well. I have changed f- to operator. Now the question is, do we want to change b- as well? Changing f- has solved the multiple fV issue, since now it is clear what "fa fe fi crvo'e" means, "A is the state of affairs in which E is the state of affairs in which I is the state of affairs in which it rains". Pointless but not meaningless. But what about multiple bV? If we change bV to an operator then "ba be tvla'eka" means "A makes E make us talk to A", which would not be very clear with babe as arguments. Yes? mu'o mi'e xorxes