[YG Conlang Archives] > [engelang group] > messages [Date Index] [Thread Index] >
Mike S., On 27/09/2012 19:43:
As far as how "m" and "d" interact: I don't know if "m" was intended to entail definiteness, though pragmatically at least that could be the usual interpretation. That entailment is certainly not necessary though; plenty of natlangs incl Portuguese and ancient Greek generally require the definite article with proper names; others like French only sometimes e.g. "la France". If Xorban followed this latter logic, then in order to be fully clear we might be forced to say "la da ma rkse se mlte vskake" for "[the definite entity called] Rex sees a cat", unless "l-" does the magic of "d-" for us. Which brings us to: As far as how "d" and "l" overlap: I will save that for another time, because I am not sure there is any real difference. Or at least, the difference is not easy to describe. Perhaps it's that "d-" excludes generic readings, and "l-" does not.
As I've just written in another message, dV = co'e voi. I'll return in another message to whether m is definite.
As far as "f-" and intensionality, IMO intensionality should be something defined in predicate places, not something marked on the object/sumti or binders/gadri. IMO I should be able to say "le fe lmna'a nlca'ake" = "I like to swim (intension)" and "le je tje fe lmna'a [hika] plkeka'a" = "I am [now] enjoying this swim (extensional)" without marking the object for intensionality because the predicate should be defined such as to indicate it. Same as "le ckle nlca'ake" = "I like chocolate (intensional)" vs. "le cke [hika] plkeka'a" = "I am [currently] enjoying chocolate (extensional)".>
If we had the -oi mechanism whereby clauses could be complements of formulas, then it would be more tenable to hold that the predicate (formula) determines the tensionality of its argument (complement). But with current Xorban syntax, a fa could simultaneously be an argument of a predicate imposing intensionality on its argument and an argument of a predicate imposing extensionality on its argument. At any rate, given your preferece, which is probably Jorge's too, and is not unreasonable, we have to take fV as unspecified for tensionality. In that case we want not only a particle for marking intensionality of fV but also a particle for marking extensionality of fV. Since these particles would always take fV as their complement, it would be better to, instead of "particle + fV", have variants of fV -- "fV, zV, tV" or "fV, fikV, fukV" or "fakV, fikV, fukV" or "fV, nekV, nokV" or whatever. --And.