[YG Conlang Archives] > [engelang group] > messages [Date Index] [Thread Index] >
On Sun, Oct 14, 2012 at 7:52 PM, John E. Clifford <kali9putra@hidden.email> wrote: > On Oct 14, 2012, at 1:37 PM, Jorge Llambías <jjllambias@hidden.email> wrote: > On Sun, Oct 14, 2012 at 3:07 PM, John E Clifford <kali9putra@hidden.email> > wrote: > > From: Jorge Llambías <jjllambias@hidden.email> > > > > Then notice that we can always replace "la ccca" by "la je ccca nu > > ddda" and "le je ccce ddde" by "le je ccce ni ddde" so that the x1 > > and x2 of a quantifier can always be filled by two almost identical > > expressions, differening only in ni/nu. > > It should be noted that these are two separate replacements, Nootka the > same one inn two occurrences. Correct. > I'm replacing "ccca" by "je ccca nu ddda", which is legitimate because > "nu ddda" is a tautology. > > 'nu' is at least once explicitly said NOT to be related to Lojban 'u' You may be thinking of Xorban's connective "ju" rather than unary "nu". >but > here apparently is (or is 'nu' really the tautology marker, an even more > useless connective?). It is a tautology marker. It's only a connective in the genaralized sense that "na" can be said to be a connective. They don't really connect two things since they are unary operators. It can't be more useless than Lojban's "ju" since it covers all of its uses. Lojban's "ju" is Xorban's "je nu". > Given the context and the lack of information, I took > these to be negation and affirmation. I now don't see how this is meant to > work at all again. na: negation ni: affirmation nu: tautology > Predicates have fixed number of arguments; this kind of ambiguity is not > acceptable without an awful lot of conventions in place. None are here. The convention we have been developing is that the number of explicit variables indicates the adicity of the predicate. There are no implicit argument places left unfilled. The same phonological form can be used for a whole family of predicates, each of a different adicity. co ma'a xrxe