[YG Conlang Archives] > [engelang group] > messages [Date Index] [Thread Index] >
On Tue, Sep 4, 2012 at 9:41 PM, And Rosta <and.rosta@hidden.email> wrote: > > Anyway, so that we don't get too sidetracked, let me recapitulate how we > got onto this. All variables must be bound, so when we come to an unbound > variable, the options are: > (1) Ungrammaticality > (2a) the variable is implicitly bound and is unrestricted > (2b) the variable is implicitly bound and preserves the restriction it had > the last time it was bound > (3) the variable is bound by something that follows it > > (1) pains my sensibility. (2a) had originally been my preference, but one > short variable (which we're currently calling o'e but which I would give the > form /ai/) would suffice, so it doesn't make sense as the default for > variables in general. (2b) is okay for a subset of variables, e.g. V'u, but > is (for reasons I've gone over before) objectionable as the default. So (3) > is merely a solution of last resort. 2a has different subversions: 2ai- Variable implicitly bound by minimal scope sV smV 2aii- Variable implicitly bound by maximal scope rV smV (this is the usual convention in maths). 2aiii- Variable implicitly bound by lV smV (scope not very relevant). > I'd be fine with declaring that the default rule for unbound variables > varies by Xorban dialect and is outside the common core (the 'kernel'?). > Then we could get on with developing the kernel in which all variables are > bound. Agreed. > So, whenever dividuality matters, quantifier scope matters, and vV is > needed. And when dividuality doesn't matter, quantifer can be lV and vV > isn't needed. > > I think it's good to have both systems, the xorloan one and the classical > one augmented by vV. How general is vV? I'm not too happy with an operator that only makes sense when used in conjunction with a single specific predicate. Can't we generalize it somehow? It seems to be related to "respectively" in some way. ma'a xrxe