[YG Conlang Archives] > [engelang group] > messages [Date Index] [Thread Index] >
Jorge Llamb�as, On 08/09/2012 00:24:
On Fri, Sep 7, 2012 at 1:19 PM, And Rosta<and.rosta@hidden.email> wrote: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".I guess so, although I have trouble imagining any actual use for that.
But the point is, logically vV must be bound so as to identify the root of the formula it expresses two versions of.
la frmra le xsle je ve pnsake va drxake je msta mste Most farmers that own donkeys beat them, while most donkeys beaten by farmers are owned by them? Now the challenge is to say that without having to repeat mst-
I think it's okay for the mst to be repeated. Each quantifier-predicate can vary independently of the other; they merely happen to be the same in this example. --And.