[YG Conlang Archives] > [engelang group] > messages [Date Index] [Thread Index] >
Mike S., On 14/09/2012 01:46:
On Thu, Sep 13, 2012 at 7:18 PM, And Rosta <and.rosta@hidden.email <mailto:and.rosta@hidden.email>> wrote: 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. Yes, that's quite right. But I was thinking, well, the intension *is* already a singularization, so why not use it and kill two birds with one stone?
I follow the reasoning.
If you need to signify extensionality explicitly in those cases where it the predicate isn't going to compel it anyway, then maybe one should suck it up for once and deal with "s/r" scope issues.
I'm not that keen, for why single out type-(ii) situations for unsingularizability, when every other predicate is singularizable. Still, I see where you're coming from. Is there any meaningful way in which there could be an extensionalizing operator, that could combine with singularization? (And let l- be the intensional marker as per your suggestion.)
Otherwise, why not just make everything singularizing, and add particles when you want scope to matter? I have thought about that, as I still occasionally make s/r scope mistakes. The intensional "l-" solution could potentially work with the basic triple binder system currently in place.
When you get a chance, can you spell out what you have in mind. I couldn't follow what your idea is here. --And.