[YG Conlang Archives] > [engelang group] > messages [Date Index] [Thread Index] >
On Fri, Sep 28, 2012 at 3:59 PM, And Rosta <and.rosta@hidden.email> wrote: > > The syntactic apparatus of a loglang divides into the essential, without > which the requisite meaning cannot be encoded, and the inessential, > introduced for usability purposes such as brevity. Of the Xorban unary > operators, all are inessential, apart from mV and fV. Arguably mV is redundant to "q...qV", which is more general. > (fV doesn't have to be > a unary operator, but if it weren't then some other device would have to be > introduced, such as the fV argument marker that the current fV unary > operator replaced.) There are some things that fV can do that the marker couldn't, or at least not as readily. >What Xorban calls "simple-formulas" are essential. Presumaly some of them are and others can be defined in terms of those. My list of "essentials" so far would be: ca fV lV xV (certain) simple-formulas > Mike says that binary operators are a generalized way of creating [unary] > operators from predicates. E.g. "na bcdi" is "je jtfa fa bcdi". "je jfta fa bcdi" has a free "a", which "na bcdi" doesn't have, (though I guess you could say it's "[la sma] je jfta fa bcdi) so I would suggest "la fa bcdi jtfa" or, from a somewhat more cryptic point of view, "la jtfa fa bcdi" > But that > isn't abbreviatory. I had formerly suggested "jtfoi bcdi", where "oi" marks > a simple-formula as taking as its complement another formula that binds the > argument-place marked by "oi". That would be an inessential device for > enhanced usability, which generalizes to all simple-formulas. > > As a result of this message, I've talked myself into proposing the > resurrection of "oi", and the replacement of some of the existing unary > operators by CC stem + oi. "CCoi" saves two syllables (or just one in CX) compared with "la CCa fa", but it's also less flexible, since it can only convert stems, not any formula. co ma'a xrxe