[YG Conlang Archives] > [engelang group] > messages [Date Index] [Thread Index] >
On Sep 10, 2012, at 3:33 PM, "Mike S." <maikxlx@gmail.com> wrote:I assume then that you would hold that "na la Ra Pa" and "la Ra na Pa" are equivalent, same as Xorban?
For the second time in this note and the I don't know how manyth time in this conversation, of course they are. Can we move on from this never disputed point?
Again, no problem. These follow from the nature of l as always leftmost in fact regardless of where it is in the text. I am sorry if I have attributed to you what is apparently &'s claim about the equivalence of l and s and r. As you say, they are not generally equivalent, though the implication chain does run r > l > s.I hold that "na la Ra Pa" and "la Ra na Pa" are generally equivalent i.e. always interchangeable. It's worth noting that "la Ra (s|r)e Re" and "(s|r)e Re la Ra" (keeping s/r the same) are also equivalent. The exact relationship between "la Ra Pa" and "(s|r)a Ra Pa" is a trickier matter, but suffice to say that it's clear that they are not generally equivalent.But this equivalence, between na laRa Pa and laRa na Pa, is very different from those between la RaPa and ra Ra Pa or sa Ra Pa, both of which are generally false.Well, (leaving aside a minor quibble) that is what is _meant_ to be proved, equivalence.As for proof, I note that, translating back to standard notation and assuming there is no context, both sides of your equivalence are simply sa Ra na Pa.