On Fri, Sep 7, 2012 at 11:21 PM, John E. Clifford
<kali9putra@hidden.email> wrote:
Not if you're going to build on it, as using l seems to do. In the last thirty years or so, no meaningful explanation of what is now [[R]], or something in it's role, has been forthcoming. laRa just projects a bunch of Rs into all the prescribed places.
There are no meaningful explanations of the zero-articles of Russian, Japanese, or Latin either, and yet somehow these languages seem to work fine. What is occurring on this thread is something that I have not seen in reviewing the thirty years of archives of the "bowl-of-oatmeal mode of discourse" over "lo": A proposal that actually attempts to put formalism first. I say:
la Ra <=> sa [[R]]a <=> ra [[R]]a
Rock n roll, baby!