[YG Conlang Archives] > [engelang group] > messages [Date Index] [Thread Index] >
On Tue, Oct 2, 2012 at 1:54 PM, Mike S. <maikxlx@gmail.com> wrote: > On Mon, Oct 1, 2012 at 6:38 PM, Jorge Llambías <jjllambias@hidden.email> > wrote: >> On Mon, Oct 1, 2012 at 2:43 PM, Mike S. <maikxlx@gmail.com> wrote: >> > >> > 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. > > Anyone can say je F G any time they like. If a speaker mentions "sa", > it's beyond reasonable to assume that "a" has some pertinence to the > restriction and the predication, however remote. "ps-" from srana seems a > suitable predicate to capture that pertinence. In terms of literalness, you > are correct of course. We seem to be in agreement there. I think my preferred reading into "sa bbbe ccci" would be something like: "sa fa bbbe fa ccci", "there's a state of affairs in which bbbe is the case, in which ccci is the case". co ma'a xrxe