[YG Conlang Archives] > [engelang group] > messages [Date Index] [Thread Index] >
Mike S., On 02/10/2012 00:35:
On Sun, Sep 30, 2012 at 8:31 AM, And Rosta <and.rosta@hidden.email <mailto:and.rosta@hidden.email>> wrote:
Mike S., On 27/09/2012 19:43:
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.
I don't believe that causes a problem generally speaking.
le ckle je nlca'ake je lo fo kkna'a fo ctka'ake
"I like chocolate and eat it when I can"
lu fu la nnla le jdne lbnake je la ma djna krcaku djna'aku.
"John believes the boy is taking the money, and I know it."
I'd been thinking of counterfactive predicates like "wish that", But I guess that "That obama wins the election I both wish and know" is simply a contradiction rather than any sort of linguistic problem.
If anything, what causes a problem is trying to cast situations as one or the other:
*"The fact that the boy is taking the money, John believes it and I know it."
*"The possibility that the boy is taking the money, John believes it and I know it."
*"The manifestation of chocolate, I like and eat it when I can"
*"The concept of chocolate, I like and eat it when I can"
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.
On the occasions in which we will need those distinctions, I think that we can encode them with precision using the predicates that we already have "the known fact that F" (lu je djno'eku fu F), "the belief that" (lu je krco'eku fu F), "the evidence that", "the hypothesis that", etc.
Does it make sense to duplicate every predicate for every place it has that can sometimes have an extensional reading and sometimes an intensional? It seems profligate unless we really can't come up with a better solution. --And.