[YG Conlang Archives] > [engelang group] > messages [Date Index] [Thread Index] >
On Thu, Sep 20, 2012 at 1:27 AM, Mike S. <maikxlx@gmail.com> wrote: > On Wed, Sep 19, 2012 at 8:46 PM, Jorge Llambías <jjllambias@hidden.email> > wrote: >> >> What happens when there's no prior restriction: >> >> se pe xkre mlte bjre >> >> Would that be the same as "je"? > > I hadn't intended for "pe" to be used in the very restriction that it was > intended to "conjoin" its own restriction with. That would be infinitely > recursive. Therefore, your example would only make sense in something like > > _se1 sme1_ se2 pe xkre mlte bjre > > which would mean effectively > > se1 sme1 se2 pe1 xkre1 mlte1 bjre2 I don't like that a variable that is seemingly under the scope of a quantifier ends up not bound by it. > (As a minor note, did you ever consider assigning an primitive operator > for "jana"? I know technically we don't need it, but it'd feel nice to have > "->AB" along side "v~AB".) I suppose that would have to be "ji". >> That looks donkeyish: >> >> re frmre sa xsla pe pnseka drxeka >> Every farmer, some donkey, that the farmer owns the donkey, beats it. > > They would be donkey cases if the main predication had an "a". The > complexity here comes from wanting to conjoin a previous restriction with a > new restriction containing a variable free in the previous one, but that can > be fixed by binding the that variable inside the new restriction, which I > indirectly showed. So it becomes: "re jana sa xsla pnseka frmre drxeka". Then "pe" not only moves pnseka back but it takes "sa xsla" along with it as well, disrupting the binding of "a" in drxeka? I don't think I like it. co ma'a xrxe