[YG Conlang Archives] > [engelang group] > messages [Date Index] [Thread Index] >
On Mon, Oct 15, 2012 at 9:25 PM, Mike S. <maikxlx@gmail.com> wrote: > On Sun, Oct 14, 2012 at 1:01 PM, Jorge Llambías <jjllambias@hidden.email> > wrote: >> >> = la je prna nu li ckli nlcaki le je prne ni li ckli nlceki mstake >> = la je prna ni'u li ckli nlcaki msta >> Peeople who DO like chocolate are most (people). > > Okay, thank you for breaking it down in a way that I can follow. So we > have: > > "Original form": > > la prna le li ckli nlceki mstake > > "Expanded form": > (la je prna nu li ckli nlcaki) (le je prne ni li ckli nlceki) mstake > > "ni'u form": > > la je prna ni'u li ckli nlcaki msta > > Is it the intention that the "expanded form" be generally recoverable from > "ni'u" form? I think so, but it requires knowing the corresponding binary predicate that goes with the unary predicate that uses ni'u. (Or rather: the (n+1)-ary predicate corresponding to the n-ary predicate that uses ni'u.) > Likewise, is the ni'u form supposed to have the same logical > structure as the "original form"? Yes, given the caveat above. > What if we directly derived from original > form a fourth variant: > > "ni form": > la prna ni le li ckli nlceki mstake > > At first blush, "ni form" would seemingly avoid some complexity, as well > as the dubiousness of "msta". It would seemingly deliver the same > informational structure as ni'u form, without tampering with the logical > structure. That's fine, but it doesn't help with the donkey sentences that ni'u was introduced for. >> So instead of "la prna le li ckli nlceki mstake" we can say "la je >> prna ni'u li ckli nlcaki msta", which uses one fewer variable, but >> also we can say "la je frmra je se xsle pnsake ni'u drxake msta", >> "farmers who own some donkey and DO beat it are most (of the farmers >> who own some donkey whether they beat it or not)", which doesn't have >> a "mstake" form without repetition. > > Or possibly "la je frmra se xsle pnsake (ni) lo drxoke mstako"? I am not > sure that removing the second argument from "mstako" is an advantage over > having a donkey anaphor. The former seems more crucial to the meaning. Sorry about that, as pc pointed out, it should have been "la je frmra se xsle je pnsake ni'u drxake msta". It's not supposed to contain any donkey anaphor. "Farmers that for some donkey they own and DO beat are most (of them)", where "them" is "Farmers that for some donkey they own whether or not they beat". > Yes, "ni'u" clearly works as a focus marker, but I am uncertain as to the > reason not to just use "ni". "ni" is a particle that could use the extra > duty to help justify its brevity, and it seems perfectly ready-made for that > duty. I don't have a problem with that, but I don't think it covers the original purpose of "ni'u". co ma'a xrxe