[YG Conlang Archives] > [engelang group] > messages [Date Index] [Thread Index] >
On Thu, Aug 30, 2012 at 10:07 PM, Mike S. <maikxlx@gmail.com> wrote: > On Thu, Aug 30, 2012 at 6:02 PM, Jorge Llambías <jjllambias@hidden.email> > wrote: >> >> "sa mlta xkra" leaves open the possibility of "sa mlta na xkra", with >> the same context and all else being equal. "la mlta xkra" and "la mlta >> na xkra" are contradictory, unless you assume a differentiating >> context for each. > > That's interesting. Is that how > > je la grka xkra la grka blba > > ... works? A differentiating context in each complement of je? Yes, "dogs are black (sometimes/in some cases) and also (sometimes/in other cases) white". > I assume > that > > la grka je xkra blba > > ... only works with a Lojbanesque joi-reading. I think it's the same case actually. If "je" meant the same event you wouldn't need "ju"! > We have no choice but to > say "najo"* with: > > la grka na jo nkna fetsa I wouldn't have a problem with "ja" there either. > Do you know any sources where these l-things been given a formal > description? It would be interesting to see some sort of list of their > properties. Most of their properies are the properties of bare plurals in English. > *By the way, has the time come to boldly declare "jo" Xorban's > exclusive-or operator? I did consider it too. It does seem to be used more than iff, and either can be got from the other. mu'o mi'e xorxes