[YG Conlang Archives] > [engelang group] > messages [Date Index] [Thread Index] >
Am 19.09.2012 03:55, schrieb Jorge Llambías:
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.
Right, though my original idea was to have just one new selma'o and have it attach to either an argument or the sentence depending on the vowel, but I think that doesn't really work well with the formula coming last in all cases. And since we have je and ju, it wouldn't fill a very big hole in the language either.
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.
Yeah. Maybe if it took a variable, then it wouldn't have to be right next to the thing it modifies:
la mlta le grke pa ju stra bjra vskekaBut I'm not sure that's even possible formally. It's a bit like allowing "lo mlatu lo gerku fa vo'a poi bajra sutra cu se viska", where the double filling invokes no'u.I do like it though, both in xorban and in Lojban.
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)* formulaWhat do you think?I don't know. It does allow a familiar pattern for saying some things, but I'm not sure.
I'm not sure either :)Btw, how does currying/{be} work in xorban? Is it "la le crle ctkake" = "lo citka be lo cirla" or how does it work?
mu'o mi'e la selpa'i -- pilno zo le xu .i lo dei bangu cu se cmene zo lojbo .e nai zo lejbo doị mèlbi mlenì'u .i do càtlu ki'u ma fe la xàmpre ŭu .i do tìnsa càrmi gi'e sìrji se tàrmi .i taị bo pu cìtka lo gràna ku