[YG Conlang Archives] > [engelang group] > messages [Date Index] [Thread Index] >
Jorge Llamb�as, On 07/09/2012 01:19:
On Wed, Sep 5, 2012 at 10:15 PM, And Rosta<and.rosta@hidden.email> wrote:Jorge Llamb�as, On 06/09/2012 01:40:On Wed, Sep 5, 2012 at 8:47 PM, And Rosta<and.rosta@hidden.email> wrote:if there is some convention that vV coerces a kind of comparative interpretation of predicates cobound with it.So vV is basically "rather" or "rather than not".Probably, yes.I'm now wondering whether vV shouldn't be just "ne". Does the V play any relevant role?
la je ckfa va mlka prfraka'a I prefer my coffee milky (to not milky) la je ckfa ne mlka prfraka'a I prefer it when coffee is indeed milky to when coffee is not indeed milky I think the ne only pragmatically gets across that the focus is the milkiness. But that objection goes away with: la ckfa li fi (ne) mlka prfrika'a where even without "ne", you get the required interp. But I can't see a way of doing without vA with the quantifier-predicates: la je frmra se xsle je pnsake va drxake msta la msta je frmra se xsle je pnsake va drxake Can you think of a vV-less method? You can't do it as: li frmra si je xsle pnsaki lu fu drxaki mstu
To summarize, then: vA is indispensable for certain logical structures (donkey sentences), and is also convenient for other quantifier-predicates and for marking focus within semantically comparative predicates such as 'prefer'. --And.