[YG Conlang Archives] > [engelang group] > messages [Date Index] [Thread Index] >
Jorge Llamb�as, On 16/09/2012 19:32:
On Sun, Sep 16, 2012 at 1:50 PM, And Rosta<and.rosta@hidden.email> wrote:Jorge Llamb�as, 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
"la ha trxa vska'aka" means what I had envisaged "la trxa vska'aka" meaning; and since I had suppose "la ha X Pa" would mean X and Pa are necessarily-same-world, "la ha fa ro trco frlo vska'aka" doesn't seem to mean anything different from "la fa ro trco frlo vska'aka", if in "fa X" we make a distinction between a and X (a being a platonic situation type, and X being something that is the case in some world). However, if f & h were swapped around, I think it would work. To avoid confusion, I'll use tV rather than hV, and define f as a situation such that in "la fa X Ra", X and Ra are in the same world. In that case, tV could have the grammar of dV, and mean that in "la ta X Ra", X and Ra are not-necessarily-same-world; tV would be the intensionality marker. la fa la mlta xkra jnve'ika She knows cats are black la ta fa la mlta xkra jnve'ika She believes cats are black [With "know" here used loosely, in the sense of "true belief" rather than "justified true belief".]
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.
OK, good point. "I talked to a future grandchild of mine" is not the same as "I talked to my having a future grandchild". Nor is "I thought about a future grandchild of mine" (on the intensional reading) equivalent to "I thought about my having a future grandchild", and "I thought about every future grandchild of mine" I can't even find a situational quasicounterpart for. So now how do we use tV for "I drew each ear of a cat" -- intensional version, where cat and its ears aren't necessarily in same world as drawing, but ears and cat are in same world as each other? The extensional version is sa mlta ri krlika pxro'ekaka'a I guess we could have sa mlta ri krlika ti pxro'ekika'a ... but as I currently have things, that means that the ears and drawing aren't necessarily same world. I guess that defaults could give us that the cat is in the same world as the ears, too. But it won't work for Jorge laughed and drew each ear of a cat la ma xrxe je cmla su mltu ri krliku ti pxro'ekika which fails to place the laughing and drawing in the same world. Here's my suggestion, where "smika" means "smi(a)", "a is smi": lo mo xrxe la ta su mltu ri krliku smika pxro'ekako In summary, I withdraw my proposal for a fV-like hV, I adopt the proposal for a dV-like intensional tV, with the proviso that bare fV is extensional, and I further propose something equivalent to smika. I'm not really satisfied with "smika", tho. What we want is something that turns a variable into a predicate, meaning "x2 have the identity/haecceity of x1". Maybe hc-: lo mo xrxe la ta su mltu ri krliku hcika pxro'ekako --And.