Re: [engelang] xorban summary

On Mon, Sep 17, 2012 at 8:31 PM, Jorge Llambías <jjllambias@hidden.email> wrote:

 

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".
>
> 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.

co ma'a xrxe

A couple considerations:

First we're not saving any syllables by making "o'e" etc. co-referential within simple formulas because if we want that effect we can usually easily say something like "le sme Peke[ke]" versus "Po'eko'e[ko'e]".  But now we have to say "Po'eko'e'e[ko'e'e'e]" versus "le sme li smi [lo smo] Peki[ko]" which loses us a syllable [or three].

Secondly, it may be difficult to remember that co-referentiality holds within but not between simple formulas.  So:

la prna ju Po'eko'eka Qo'eka

would really mean:

la prna ju [lo'e smo'e] Po'eko'eka [lo'e smo'e] Qo'eka

which may be unexpected.

co ma'a mke