[YG Conlang Archives] > [engelang group] > messages [Date Index] [Thread Index] >
On Sun, Sep 16, 2012 at 4:59 PM, And Rosta <and.rosta@hidden.email> wrote: > > 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. Shouldn't the unmarked form be the more general one, and the marked form the special case? > 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".] So more like "she's right that ... " (but possibly for the wrong reasons). > 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 I just can't get an intensional reading here, since "sa" requires an extension, even if one consisting of imaginary cats. >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. Doesn't "ti" yank just the i into a different world? Wouldn't o'e and a remain in the same world? i and u would be in the same world by virtue of both being arguments of krliku, in which neither is marked by t-. > 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 That seems to singularize the ears, right? ma'a xrxe