[YG Conlang Archives] > [engelang group] > messages [Date Index] [Thread Index] >
Jorge Llamb�as, On 18/09/2012 01:31:
On Mon, Sep 17, 2012 at 8:59 PM, Mike S.<maikxlx@gmail.com> wrote:On Mon, Sep 17, 2012 at 7:53 PM, Mike S.<maikxlx@gmail.com> wrote:Formally this would be "la'a mslfa'a lo'e smo'e lo'e smo'e pnja'ako'eko'e" I think we have to agree that the outer o'e-binding has no effect and the inner o'e-binding is applied twice. Since we all (except pc) agree that "l-" is somehow singularizing, i.e. binds its variable to one entity (however that works), it's really hard not to read this as "I put things on themself".
"I put stuff on stuff" is no different from "I put stuff on itself", when there is nothing but stuff.
Moreover, what would we want le sme pnja'akeke to mean?OK, I'm convinced, yes, it has to mean "I put things on themselves", whether sigularized or not. So, for the cases where we want distinct o'e in the same simple formula, I suggest tassigning the whole series: o'e, o'e'e, o'e'e'e, and so on for this purpose. It should be rare to have to use two of these in the same simple formula, and extremely rare to need more than two.
I think it would be not unusual to want to have two arguments implicit but cobound, but: 1. Multiple distinct o'e won't make sense if they expand to "lo'e smo'e". Instead they should expand to "so'e smo'e". However: 2. I don't think it's unreasonable to forbid multiple distinct implicitly bound o'e, and just have lo'e smo'e. To say "I put something on something else" or even "I put something on itself" without excluding there being anything but itself, one would have to use explicit "sa sma". --And.