[YG Conlang Archives] > [engelang group] > messages [Date Index] [Thread Index] >
On Mon, Oct 8, 2012 at 10:00 AM, selpa'i <seladwa@hidden.email> wrote: > > Firstly, I noticed that the grammar says that binary operators and > interjections are followed by "desinence", not just a simple vowel. This > means that "laka mlta bjra" parses, as does "la'e mlta je'iko bjra > ctke", which seems like nonsense. Is it nonsense? "je'iko" is a valid form for a coordinator, but we haven't as yet given it any meaning. If you need to give it meaning, I would say every undefined coordinator be defined as equivalent to "je" until assigned a new meaning. "a" and "e" in your second example are syntactically free variables, and we haven't as yet fully specified the rules for semantically binding syntactically free variables.. "laka" is valid, though redundant to simple "la". A more interesting example is: "lake ptfake tvlake" (A,E)/father(A.E): talks(A,E). Your examples are not complete nonsense, they are just not something likely to be said. They mean "the cat runs" and "for it with A being a cat, it is the case that A runs and E eats". > Secondly, what is the "y" doing in the stems? Is this for compounds? The > parser tells me that "cktykxa" is a formula, so I assume it's for > compounds. Yes. > Thirdly, if I'm reading the grammar correctly, then "qaeiouq" is a legal > stem and so is "qq". Is that true? Yes. (The grammar for q..q as written is ambiguous, it allows the same string to be generated in more than one way, it should really be "q X* q", with X being any phoneme other than q.) co ma'a xrxe