[YG Conlang Archives] > [engelang group] > messages [Date Index] [Thread Index] >
Mike S., On 03/10/2012 04:56:
On Tue, Oct 2, 2012 at 3:27 PM, And Rosta <and.rosta@hidden.email <mailto:and.rosta@hidden.email>> wrote:
Mike S., On 02/10/2012 18:34:
> Why has "d" been proposed when it seems plain & obvious to me that a
> predicate similar to "skicu" (with places rearranged) would suffice?
It's not plain and obvious to me that a predicate similar to "skicu" would suffice. However, in another message I've noted that a (dyadic) predicate similar to "co'e" would suffice.
If "d-" is comparable to "co'e voi" and "voi" is related to "le", and
"le" has been defined by Jorge (correctly as far as I can tell) as
"zo'e noi mi ke'a do skicu lo ka ce'u broda", then if I were taking a
crack at defining "d-", then I would introduce slvlsk [< selvelski <
se ve skicu] and say:
da Fa <=> la' Fa' slvlskaka'[ka'ake'e]
Jorge is making the reasonable assumption that noi phrases are outside the scope of the main sentential illocutionary operators & hence not part of sentential truth-conditions. Once Xorban has a way to mark that, the voi part can be done with an extraillocutional noi-like phrase involving skicu.
If you have something else in mind, that's fine. But as a general rule, I do think we should be anchoring all operator proposals in terms of the most basic operators and any needed predicates. (If you have already done that for "d-" then it's my fault for I missing it of course.)
We agree on this. "da mlta" = "li mlti dfika", where "df" is the predicate meaning "co'e" and the x1 is the voi argument. --And.