[YG Conlang Archives] > [engelang group] > messages [Date Index] [Thread Index] >
Jorge Llamb�as, On 31/08/2012 01:16:
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?
I like making bV an operator. But I think the fate of bV needs to be considered also in the context of whether argument ellipsis occurs, e.g. whether triadic tvl- can be given only one or two overt variables, and if so, which of the three arguments can be left implicit. I think that for brevity's sake it's good if any argument can be left implicit, and to achieve this aim you'd have to fiddle with the morphology of predicates in the way I suggested in another message: instead of CCC-V-k-V-k-V, you'd have CC-(C1-V)-(C2-V)-(C3-V), where any of C1/C2/C3-V are omissible, as long as one remains, and CC+C1, CC+C2, CC+C3 are each sufficient to uniquely identify the predicate. Under this scheme, the consonants could be drawn from pools where each pool is associated with a semantic protorole (like Mike's A,P,T). In a system like this, the need for bV would be diminished, perhaps to the extent where on balance it is done without. --And.