Re: [engelang] Xorban Development

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