[YG Conlang Archives] > [engelang group] > messages [Date Index] [Thread Index] >
Jorge Llamb�as, On 05/09/2012 02:17:
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).
Definitely not 2aii -- in the way that "I was reading" doesn't mean "I was reading everything". I'd originally envisaged 2ai, but now you point out 2aiii I can't see why it couldn't be either 2ai or 2aiii.
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.
Related to "respectively" how? To refresh my memory: "la fa si frmri su xslu je pnsiku va drxiku lo msto dnksntncako "most is the propertion of states of affairs in which "si frmri su dnku je pnsiku nu drxiku" is the case that are states of affairs in which "si frmri su dnku je pnsiku ne drxiku" is the case" where vV is a bound unary operator whose sole function (but a vital and necessary one) is to do donkey sentences." That could be simplified to "la fa si frmri su xslu je pnsiku va drxiku msta" [Where "most" is no longer the number "most" but is a fusion of mst and dnksntnc] Here vV is bound by fV. The generalization could (roughly and fumblingly) be that the complement of the binder of vV expresses two propositions at once, one with vV replaced by nu, and one with vV replaced by ne (= ja'a). The binder can then be argument of any predicate that specifies a relationship between these two propositions. I suppose you could use vV for conditionals in general. E.g. If I see you I'll greet you la fa je vska'aka'e va rnsa'aka'e rra "All cases of me seeing you whether or not I greet you are cases of me seeing you and greeting you" Also All swans are white la fa li je svni va blbi rra "all cases of there being swans that are or aren't white are cases of there being swans that are white" Maybe you can take these ideas and generalize further? --And.