[YG Conlang Archives] > [engelang group] > messages [Date Index] [Thread Index] >
Mike S., On 13/09/2012 23:38:
On Thu, Sep 13, 2012 at 3:31 PM, And Rosta <and.rosta@hidden.email <mailto:and.rosta@hidden.email>> wrote:
3. Split f- into intensional (world-shifting) and nonintensional versions, say f- and h-. It can be a bit verbose, tho: "la fa la sma pvjrna pxro'ekaka'a" as opposed to the ambiguous (or extensional) "la pvjrna pxro'ekaka'a".
If "l-" were intensional then I think the f- and h- distinction would
be unnecessary. I think we need a predicate or operator that somehow
means "imaginary/possible but nonexistent in the world of the
containing formula" which I think is what you're after, but I am
unsure how to derive that.
"imaginary/possible but *not necessarily existent* in the world of the containing formula" -- I want to be able to talk about drawing a picture of a T-Rex fighting a unicorn without either claiming or denying that the fighting exists in the same world as the drawing. And of course I also want to be able to talk about drawing a picture of a T-Rex fighting a unicorn and claim that the fighting exists in the same world as the drawing. The problem with relying on intensional l is that the distinction between (i) there being an explosion and me looking at it and sketching it and (ii) me drawing a picture of T-Rex fighting unicorn would -- if I understand your idea correctly -- be based on "sa fa" for (i) and "la fa" for (ii), but in that case we would not be able to apply singularization to (i) without simultaneously giving it interpretation (ii). By contrast, I propose "sa/la ha" for (i) and "sa/la fa" for (ii). I'm not wedded to h-, but I do think the (i)--(ii) distinction is necessary and also distinct from singularization. --And.