[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-")



Sent from my iPad

On Sep 11, 2012, at 4:23 PM, "Mike S." <maikxlx@gmail.com> wrote:

 

On Tue, Sep 11, 2012 at 5:19 PM, John E. Clifford <kali9putra@hidden.email> wrote:
That is, of course, the way it should be but not the way it is written up -- if I am reading the rather compressed and Ina moated descriptions correctly.

No, it's not written up that way, so it's possible that Jorge feels that lo'e smo'e is sufficient given the semantics of "l- sm-", or maybe he's just being terse.  In any case, forcing a reflexive interpretation of Po'eko'e would belie the purpose of "o'e"; I think we agree there.

Indeed.

On Tue, Sep 11, 2012 at 5:23 PM, John E. Clifford <kali9putra@hidden.email> wrote: 

Oh yes, and you need s, not l, as the quantifier because these guys cannot move a hair away from their predicate without fouling the semantics.

Implicit "o'e" restrictions are probably going to show up adjacent to the primitive formula, except when "a'a" and similar get in the way.  Aside from that, isn't it safe to move "l-" and unsafe to move "s-"? I thought we agreed on that.  

So, the quantifier on o'e wants to be as short scope as possible, I.e., s.  Just because l can move freely.