[YG Conlang Archives] > [engelang group] > messages [Date Index] [Thread Index] >

[Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next]

Re: [engelang] Xorban experimental tense markers

I have now read through this thread and see that some of my points/questions have already been covered.  No need to reply to those.

On Sun, Sep 30, 2012 at 9:04 PM, selpa'i <seladwa@hidden.email> wrote:

Am 01.10.2012 01:42, schrieb And Rosta:

> selpa'i, On 30/09/2012 14:50:
>> I'm not sure it's a good idea to have tense markers at all in
>> Xorban.
> I guess, Selpa'i, that you haven't read the whole thread? I can't see how, if you'd read my contributions, you could be writing your message. You write as if you were challenging a consensus that there should be unary operators expressing tense.

I think I have to apologize for misrepresenting the intentions of some
of Xorban's contributors and I probably wrote this message in the wrong
thread. Upon rereading this thread, I realized that you were agreeing
with me. My post was the result of many small things I thought I had
noticed in seperate threads which to me seemed like Xorban was
introducing loads and loads of new words and constructs which in turn
seemed to introduce the same sort of chaos that we find in Lojban. If
that is not what is actually happening, I'm glad to know that. Maybe it
was just an illusion, which is very possible. =)

To a certain extent, what you are seeing is not an illusion, but an unavoidable side effect of an unstructured research & development process.  One of the things for which we have seen a number of mechanisms introduced is intensionality.  There was the notion that "l-" was intensional versus extensional "s-"; there was the suggestion that "f-" could cover intensions (à la tu'a); there was And's idea of "h-" for intensional situations (which I listed as huk- to generalize h-); there was a supposedly intensional binder t- of some sort; there is a non-veridical explanation for "d-" (which may overlap with intensionality depending how you explain non-veridicality); there is my idea that intensional/extensional distinctions are part of the definition of an argument place for each predicate.  There may have been one or two other things.  Obviously, it would be unacceptable chaos to allow this load of hodgepodge into the final language.  But that's certainly not going to happen in the end.

--
co ma'a mke

Xorban blog: Xorban.wordpress.com
My LL blog: Loglang.wordpress.com