[YG Conlang Archives] > [engelang group] > messages [Date Index] [Thread Index] >
On Tue, Sep 18, 2012 at 6:13 PM, selpa'i <seladwa@hidden.email> wrote: > > Let's say that cmavo is ... it seems all CV's are already taken. Can > cmavo be CC(V) ? Those are predicates. But there's still room for more operators. > Well let's pretend the cmavo is bn- (you can change it > to anything you want, this is just to describe the idea). If we were to adopt it, I would go with p-, since the current proposed function for p-, which I haven't even added to the grammar yet, can easily be re-assigned to a jVkV form. But what you are proposing is not just a new cmavo, it's a new selma'o. Currently we only have four selma'o: NA, LA, CA and WA (plus a fifth, CCA, if we want to call the class of predicates a selma'o). Your selma'o PA would require a new grammatical construct. Additionaly, it might also require splitting selma'o LA in two: binders and connectives, since PA would only seem to work with the binders. So we would be effectively adding two new selma'o. > Then, bnV, depending on the vowel, adds a subordinate clause to the > variable V. I'm not sure I see why you need it to take a variable, though. It seems to me that since it acts in conjunction with a binder, the variable is already specified by the binder. >Then the referent set of that V are restricted to only those > referents for which the subordinate clause is true: > > le mlte bne li jbmi plpeki nlca'ake > I like the cat that jumped on the table. That could be: la mlta pe li jbmi plpaki nlca'aka "pe" would effectively be a postposed "je" but with a more restricted functionality. Instead of: binary-operator formula formula we would have: binary-operator formula (p VkV formula)? formula or perhaps: binary-operator formula (p VkV formula)* formula > What do you think? I don't know. It does allow a familiar pattern for saying some things, but I'm not sure. co ma'a xrxe