[YG Conlang Archives] > [engelang group] > messages [Date Index] [Thread Index] >
Jorge Llamb�as, On 07/09/2012 02:51:
On Thu, Sep 6, 2012 at 10:26 PM, And Rosta<and.rosta@hidden.email> wrote:Jorge Llamb�as, On 07/09/2012 01:19: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 milkyHow do you get "prefer it when" from that? You have prfr_a_, and a is ckfa and also (mlka rather than not). I don't see how "ne" introduces an "it when" reading.
I was just glossing loosely. Instead: "I prefer stuff that is milky coffee over stuff that is not milky coffee". I think "ne" doesn't capture logically the "if it's coffee, I prefer it milky" meaning. Oh bugger. I was thinking "ne" was ja'a/indeed, which is in fact "ni". Whereas, you were suggesting a new unary operator that expresses dual propositions, but isn't bound -- right? Sorry. To prove the need for binding, I'd have to create an example of the form: la bcda li fghi [je va jklaki vi mnpaki] Before I do in my ever more sluggish head with trying to think of an actual example, do you agree that this abstract example requires vV binding? I is "je jklaki ni/nu mnpaki" & A is "je ni/nu jklaki mnpaki". --And.