[YG Conlang Archives] > [engelang group] > messages [Date Index] [Thread Index] >
On Sat, Sep 29, 2012 at 7:29 PM, And Rosta <and.rosta@hidden.email> wrote: > Jorge Llambías, On 29/09/2012 22:47: > > > Arguably mV is redundant to "q...qV", which is more general. > > The contents of q...q is raw phonological material, whereas the complement > of mV is a single phrase, and therefore has syntactic (and hence semantic) > structure. Yes, but I'm not sure there's much difference in the end. If the raw material is interpretable, it can be interpreted anyway, and also the syntactically valid phrase could have no other meaning than as an onomastic, just like the raw material. I'd say mV is more a convenience than an essential. > > My list of "essentials" so far would be: > > > > ca > > fV > > lV > > xV > > (certain) simple-formulas > > I think that would be exactly my list, too. Possibly lV could be reduced > to xV, tho. How would that work? How would you reduce "la mlta xkra" to something with x-? I can't think of any way to do it. > Arguably illocutionaries, including ca, could also be reduced to > simple-formulas too. I thought you would say that. Is it because we could give default assertive force to an utterance without an explicit cV? co ma'a xrxe