[YG Conlang Archives] > [engelang group] > messages [Date Index] [Thread Index] >
For the quantifier predicates, let's provisionally suppose there are three series (corresponding to the three types I mentioned), indicated by one of the two Cs, with the other C indicating the fraction, which might include: none [on the arguable grounds that this is more basic than negation] some some-but-not-all all most large proportion small proportion ?almost all ?almost none ... So that would involve reserving a space of 3*(6--9) CC combos. They don't all need to be CC, tho. I guess things like "want", "believe", "intend", "start" might warrant CCs too, i.e. on grounds of individual importantness.
I probably will whip together a shake-n-bake Lojbanically a-posteriori vocabulary
What's a *Lojbanically* a-posteriori vocab? I'd like a handcrafted one, where patterning among forms reflects patterning among meanings. --And. Mike S., On 24/09/2012 19:08:
On Mon, Sep 24, 2012 at 11:43 AM, And Rosta <and.rosta@hidden.email <mailto:and.rosta@hidden.email>> wrote:
There was ck, from Jorge. I proposed hc, x1 is haecceity of x2. The quantifier predicates should be CC too, I think, both dyadic "x2 is n% of x1" (and maybe also "n% of x2 has property x1") and monadic, where the single argument contains a jiuk- with which it is cobound -- but there's no list of proposed forms.
I am going to start listing proposals and my own suggestions. Feel free to comment here or on the blog.
http://loglang.wordpress.com/xorban/vocabulary/
I probably will whip together a shake-n-bake Lojbanically a-posteriori vocabulary in the near future for the purposes of CX, creating a very rough sketch of predicate classes in the process.
--
co ma'a mke
Xorban blog: Xorban.wordpress.com <http://xorban.wordpress.com/>
My LL blog: Loglang.wordpress.com <http://loglang.wordpress.com/>