[YG Conlang Archives] > [engelang group] > messages [Date Index] [Thread Index] >

[Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next]

Re: [engelang] Xorban: Semantics of "l-" (and "s-" and "r-")

These communications get rather out of synch.  So, to sum up;  'lV' is a particular quantifier (an sV but for one peculiar property) which, wherever it occurs, has scope over the entire discourse and thus is immune to influence from local matters like rV or other sV or na or je.  This does mean that somethings which I would have called lVs on analogy with {lo} are, in fact, sVs, since they have only local scope and are affected by negations and other local quantifiers.  In particular, the definition of o'e turns out to require an initial sV, not lV..  There remains the problem of properly showing scopes when these are restricted by intensional context.  I suspect now this takes one of those nasty Montagovian operators which returns intensional objects, but I am not sure just how it all works.


From: Mike S. <maikxlx@gmail.com>
To: engelang@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Sunday, September 9, 2012 8:20 PM
Subject: Re: [engelang] Xorban: Semantics of "l-" (and "s-" and "r-")

 
On Sat, Sep 8, 2012 at 6:18 PM, John E Clifford <kali9putra@hidden.email> wrote: 
So, you can't just throw in an lV anywhere you want and succeed in saying what you want.  The same goes for rV and sV, of course, but seems to be more critical for lV.  But that is possibly an artifact of my still thinking in terms of {lo}, a different sort of operator.  Incidentally, if I understand what is going on aright, my problems with lV will have repercussions for the constants like "I" and "you" and "whatever": if lV is totally leftmost, then the first two are all right and the last all wrong; contrariwise contrariwise -- well, not really all wrong but "I" and "you" get redefined each time they appear.

I may be a little obtuse, but can you please explain why your "lV" is supposed to be underlyingly leftmost?  It seems to me that if your "lV" is anything like "sV", then you are making a rather stronger claim (when "rV" is in the picture) than you might want.  In contrast, if "lV" is rightmost and like "sV", you're making a weaker claim which seems more desirable in general.  Then again, I really don't know whether your "lV" is anything like "sV".  I guess what I am saying is that it would be nice to understand what you have in mind, because I really don't have a clue on that.