[YG Conlang Archives] > [engelang group] > messages [Date Index] [Thread Index] >
Mike S., On 17/09/2012 01:43:
On Sun, Sep 16, 2012 at 4:26 PM, And Rosta <and.rosta@hidden.email <mailto:and.rosta@hidden.email>> wrote:
Co takes as its complement a formula, right? What happens when the formula contains more than one of a'a/e'e/V'i? E.g. "O my darling" vs "It's your lover here" -- co prma'ake'e.
I think co has to be rethought a bit...
Hmm, I guess that would be:
co prma'ake'e
I hereby make these identifications: I am such and you are such that I love you.
I hereby identify me and you, noting that I love you.
?O my beloved; me someone who loves you
It seems that often "a'a" could be elided without much pragmatic impact; "e'e" could drop out without a clear impact rarely if ever:
djna'a, co ptfe'eka'a.
I know, you my father, me with you as father.
approx= djna'a, co ptfe'e.
I know, father.
not really= djna'a, co ptfo'eka'a.
I know, me someone with a father.
So it's not certain that there's a problem.
I agree with you; I no longer think there's a problem.
In the way I see things developing, I wouldn't be surprised if by the time that the language design stage is largely complete and the optimization stage commences, everyone will be so used to "a'a" etc. that probably no one will want to change.
It wouldn't surprise me either. Awareness of that makes me slightly uncomfortable with going along with provisional stuff that is unacceptable in the long run, even tho it seems petty to deliberate it in the short run; for the more entrenched it is, the harder it will be to kill it eventually. But instead, I am proceeding partly on the premise that an optimal design, or a family of optimal designs, is produced before anything is published, and partly on the premise that we are currently discussing designs rather than trying to build a single language yet. --And.