[YG Conlang Archives] > [engelang group] > messages [Date Index] [Thread Index] >
On Sep 30, 2012 4:40 PM, "Jorge Llambías" <jjllambias@hidden.email> wrote:
>
> On Sun, Sep 30, 2012 at 10:50 AM, selpa'i <seladwa@hidden.email> wrote:
> >
> > I thought Xorban was supposed to be simple grammatically, and "logical"
> > whatever that means. If it is indeed supposed to remain simple, then you
> > don't even need any new mechanisms for tense, you already have ju.
>
> I agree that tense doesn't merit any additional grammatical
> complexity, but the particles proposed by Mike would just be
> additional members to the already existing selma'o NA, no new
> mechanisms.
It still adds grammatical complexity. Firstly it multiplies lexical items, on the reasonable assumption that the tense operators would have formula stem counterparts. Secondly, when the grammar is more fully codified, there will be further word-classes defined not just by combinatorics but also by patterns of equivalence with other logical forms, and conceivably a new bunch of operators might in this way introduce a new word-class.
--And.