[YG Conlang Archives] > [engelang group] > messages [Date Index] [Thread Index] >
On Mon, Oct 1, 2012 at 2:43 PM, Mike S. <maikxlx@gmail.com> wrote: > > In "sa bbbe ccci", we have two distinct problems: unbound "e" and "i", > and "a" bound uselessly. The former problem we have discussed at some > length with solutions: [...] > We all know who supports what on that. Of the other problem, it's > tempting to me to want to declare it ungrammatical, I don't see a reason to make it ungrammatical, since it clearly has meaning (even if not a very useful meaning). "sa bbbe ccci" has the same truth value as "je bbbe ccci". The variable "a" is just wasted there, but I don't think there can be any doubt as to the meaning: "For some a for which bbbe is true (i.e. anything if bbbe is true and nothing if bbbe is false) it is the case that ccci", A pointless use of "a", but not meaningless. > but if we were > determined to try to make sense of it, it might be something like, > > sa bbbe ccci > sa [le sme] [je pseka] bbbe [li smi] [je psika] ccci > "There exists an A pertaining to bbb E such that A pertains to ccc I. > > ... which is not at all necessarily good, but may be the best thing we > might make of a bad sentence. I don't see the need for anything that complicated. That may well be a connotation of that sentence, but surely not part of its proper meaning. "sa R P" is truth functionally equivalent to "sa sma je R P", and I see no reason to exclude from these the contrived cases where R (or P) don't contain a free a. Similarly "ra bbbe ccci" is truth functionally equivalent to "ja na bbbe ccci". co ma'a xrxe