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


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

Re: [engelang] Xorban: Termsets



These pose various problems for me

Sent from my iPad

On Oct 5, 2012, at 11:20 AM, "Mike S." <maikxlx@gmail.com> wrote:

 

On Thu, Oct 4, 2012 at 9:32 PM, Jorge Llambías <jjllambias@hidden.email> wrote: 

What if... instead of introducing foretrees and aftertrees, we were to
make he and hi full-fledged formulas (somewhat like Lojban's selma'o
GOhA)? Something like:

sentence := formula | CA # formula | WA

formula := HA | CCA | NA # formula | LA # formula # formula

# := (CA # formula | WA)*

As a side note, I admit that notation is nice and easy to read when you're used to it.  My concern is whether something so cryptic is the best way to present the grammar to the world.
 

Full-fledged he/hi would not be exactly equivalent to fore/after-tree
he/hi, but for basic cases they would work in the same way. The
formula they stand for would have to be the one from the
following/preceding sentence (not including the illocutionary
operator), so we could say things like:

cu xgja'a? ci hi!
Am I hungry? I am!

as well as things like:

je la mlta he la grka na he le fnpe nlcake
The cat does and the dog doesn't, like fish.

Not sure how to bring negation in, probably just Polish fashion: je X la mlta na X la grka Y le fnpe nlcake


(?): "The cat does and the dog doesn't [like fish]; [ci] [la R?a] likes fish."  Or, does "he" consume the following sentence?  If so, is that sentence semantically a sentence?  Is the he-_expression_?  The he-_expression_ would still be grammatical if the following sentence were a WA, or absent for that matter, but what meaning would be assigned?   I don't see any way to deny here that a logically whole sentence is getting broken into more than one syntactic sentence.

And perhaps:

mlta je sa hi he na ra hi he xkra
Cats, some are but not all are, black.

I don't think I can do this at all

That's interesting, but ideally what we'd want to do here is just coordinate the binders, not insert four placeholders for a common restriction & predication, and then front the restriction.

he'e sa na ra mlta xkra

or

Haven't figured out the role of he'e

je sa ha na ra ha mlta xkra

versus

mlta je sa hi he na ra hi he xkra


Thoughts?

co ma'a xrxe


Another example:

la je vrba ( je le brneka li cdri hiki ju xndake dndakike le mnseka li ckti hiki ju xndake dndakike ) li hika tcmi tvla'akaki
"The child who to his brother a radio kindly gave and to his sister a book kindly gave, about the current weather I'm talking to."

I take this to be non-restrictive relative clause. La vrba je je X le brneka li cdri Y X le mnsake li ctki Y ju xndake dndakike li hika tcmi tvla'akaki

Not clear what hiki does.  Looks like he but is repeated with full verb phrase.
Is hika a propositional function meaning now?

I see these are experimental on some way, so I am not too concerned about them yet.

I am wondering whether I could physically separate my two term sets to bring the verb up earlier for clarity.