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

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

Re: [engelang] reformulating the core grammar

On Tue, Oct 2, 2012 at 8:04 PM, And Rosta <and.rosta@hidden.email> wrote:

Mike S., On 03/10/2012 00:52:
>
>
> On Mon, Oct 1, 2012 at 6:54 PM, Jorge Llambías <jjllambias@hidden.email <mailto:jjllambias@hidden.email>> wrote:


>
> On Sun, Sep 30, 2012 at 7:29 AM, And Rosta <and.rosta@hidden.email <mailto:and.rosta%40gmail.com>> wrote:
> >
> > 5. Binder of vV is always fV [--Maybe; i forget if this is not always so]
>
> There was this example without fV:
>
> > la je ckfa va mlka prfraka'a
> > I prefer my coffee milky (to not milky)
>
> I'd like to replace vV with ni'u(kV), but before I do that I was
> hoping for some feedback on:
>
> http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/engelang/message/912
>
> co ma'a xrxe
>
>
> I've completely ignored v- to date. I will try to remedy that in the next day or so.

That gives me a suitable opportunity to say that I have ignored firstly your proposals for devices dealing with intensionality and secondly the termsets discussion. The intrinsic difficulty of those discussions coupled with my lack of time means I don't think I'll manage to read through them properly. If either set of proposals have settled down a bit, I'd welcome it if you could post a summary of them.

--And.

My main device for dealing with intensionality boils down to assuming intensions everywhere and kicking them down to extensions exactly when needed, i.e. when satisfying extensional argument places.  My idea is like the flip side of Old Lojban, which used to pretend that everything was most basically extensional and treat intensions as the special cases.  This involves implicitly tracking and paying attention to possible worlds, so there is a lot of overlap between intensional and modal concepts.  I haven't worked everything out yet in a systematic way (I especially want to get a unified system for worlds and situations), but when I do, I anticipate that I will be advocating relatively few special devices in the grammar to deal with intensionality, and possibly none other than a handful of purely abbreviatory operators for frequent used constructions.  In a nutshell, most and probably all intensional references IMO can be handled through predicate places.

I will give a termset sitrep on the termset thread.

--
co ma'a mke

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