[YG Conlang Archives] > [engelang group] > messages [Date Index] [Thread Index] >
Jorge Llamb�as, On 17/09/2012 01:45:
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?
But which is which? By semantics, the intensional is the unmarked. By frequency, the extensional is the unmarked. But anyway, I couldn't get an extensional tV and intensional fV to work, whereas I could get intensional tV and extensional fV to work.
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).
Yes.
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.
The ti says the ears and cat are possibly in a different world from the picture.
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?
Not o'e, since "ti pxro'ekika" is "ti so'e smo'e pxro'ekika". I assume that a is in both worlds; in one world a is ma xrxe and in the other aispxro'ekika.
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'ekakoThat seems to singularize the ears, right?
Ah yes. Maybe I should change it to: lo mo xrxe ra ta su mltu ri krliku hcika pxro'ekako --And.