On Tue, Sep 18, 2012 at 9:55 PM, Jorge Llambías
<jjllambias@hidden.email> wrote:
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.
Here is a way to implement selpa'i's proposal easily in the current grammar. Call "p-" the "afterthought restriction operator". It would be a binary operator that would look like a binder, but instead of binding a new variable, it would conjoin another restriction to the existing restriction of that variable. The simplest example would be something like:
se mlte pe xkre vska'ake
"Some cat, a black one that is, I see it.
This would be logically equivalent to:
se je mlte xkre vska'ake.
Unlike the "bn-" operator, the "p-" operator need not immediately follow the restriction that it is modifying. We could have:
se mlte sa grka pe xkra vskake
"Some cat, some dog, a black cat I mean, [that dog] sees [that black cat].
This would be logically equivalent to:
se je mlte xkre sa grka vskake.
I think we could even say things like:
le mlte je pe xkre nlce'eke pe blbe vska'ake
"Cats, black ones you like and white ones I like."
or even
co mlte je pe xkre nlce'eke pe blbe vska'ake
"As far as cats, you like black ones and I like white ones."
I think that's pretty cool. The logical transformations seem pretty straightforward to me, although as usual they should be formalized.