[YG Conlang Archives] > [engelang group] > messages [Date Index] [Thread Index] >
On Sat, Sep 15, 2012 at 4:47 PM, And Rosta <and.rosta@hidden.email> wrote: > Jorge Llambías, On 15/09/2012 20:07: > > > > We haven't defined "word" other than by where we are writing spaces, > > so the words we have so far are: simple-formula, unary-operator, > > binary-operator, illocutionary-operator and is-called. I shouldn't have included "is-called" there, because "is-called sentence1 sentence2" would be ambiguous between sentence1 being the parenthetical and sentence2 the onomastic or viceversa. So a parenthetical can't be allowed after "is-called". A parenthetical inside an onomastic should probably be understood as being part of the onomastic. > So I'd go for either assigning an unassigned C to interjections, e.g. q, > or else partioning cV so that c + certain Vs are or begin interjections > while c + the other Vs are or begin illocutionaries that have a complement. q would conflict with the use of q...q- for arbitraty form stems. > I agree with the definition of parenthetical, "any complete sentence > inserted between any two words of another sentence", and I agree with the > definition of "complete sentence". But I don't accept that illocutionaries > would only be sentence-initial, so the presence of an illocutionary popping > up mid-sentence is not itself indicative of a parenthetical beginning. I > don't see this as a problem, mind you. It just means you can't tell that > something is a parenthetical until the parenthetical is complete and you > find it is not part of the containing sentence. But if c- doesn't necessarily begin a sentence, something like "la bcda na ca fgjo'e klma" would be ambiguous between "ca fgjo'e" inserted into "la bcda na () klma" and "na ca fgjo'e" inserted into "la bcda () klma". ma'a xrxe