[YG Conlang Archives] > [engelang group] > messages [Date Index] [Thread Index] >
On Sun, Sep 16, 2012 at 1:50 PM, And Rosta <and.rosta@hidden.email> wrote: > Jorge Llambías, On 16/09/2012 04:07: > > > > Well, it seems it would be just as easy to define hV in the way dV > > is defined, instead of the way fV is defined. > > "All the trees fell and I saw it" with fV-like hV is "la ha ro [tree]o > [fall]o vska'aka". I don't see how to do that With dV-like hV. la ha fa ro trco frlo vska'aka like: la da fa ro trco frlo vska'aka So you could also say: la ha trxa vska'aka like la da trxa vska'aka > >> Which example do you mean? I did say (unclearly) that the x2 of > >> "talk to" could be a "la fa la sma [future greatgrandchild of > >> hers]a", where "talk to" here means "X speaks and X intends that > >> the speech be directed to Y". > > > > "talk to a situation/state of affairs" doesn't make much sense to > > me. > > How do you tell whether something is or isn't a situation? What is it > about situations that make it nonsensical to talk to one? Well, at the very least, the situation in which someone is a future greatgrandchild of hers is a situation that contains herself as well as the greatgrandchild, so if you say she talks to that situation, the two cases of her talking to the greatgrandchild and her talking to herself in that situation are not distinguished. I'm now not sure if in your example "la fa la sma [future greatgrandchild of hers]a", your using the same variable "a" with two different bindings was meant to have significance or you just wanted to spare variables. I read it as equivalent to "le fe la sma [future greatgrandchild of hers]a", and there's nothing there to tell us that the greatgrandchild inside the situation is being especially picked by le fe. ma'a xrxe