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

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

Re: [engelang] Xorban: la je cmla nltra


On Fri, Oct 19, 2012 at 6:28 PM, Jorge Llambías <jjllambias@hidden.email> wrote: 

On Thu, Oct 18, 2012 at 8:54 PM, Mike S. <maikxlx@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> formula := "hu" sentence* huk desinence | (the rest)

Sounds good. Should we assign zu ... zukV to it?

That's fine.  If z- is for pure structure words, then I assume ha, he and hi will eventually be (something like) za, ze and zi?

 
> I notice that mln- might help with defining the perfective. Then maybe
> the imperfective could be defined using "na mln-".

Maybe.

perfective F = lo fo F mlno
"the event of F is done"

imperfective F = lo fo F na mlno
"the event of F is not done"

F by itself encompasses either, or both.  I think that works.

 
> The tf- usage is interesting. It's certainly naturalistic, but do we want
> a deictic to cover anaphora, or do want a way to explicitly mean "last
> restriction"?

"Last restriction" seems too metalinguistic for my taste. I'm not sure
I like the idea of the meaning of a predicate depending on the choice
of variable names.

I think "last restriction" just means "anaphoric".  I don't have a problem with a plain unbound variable being used for "he/she/it/they", but if we wanted to provide a way of making that sort of usage explicit, we could set aside dz from L dza < da (anaphors are probably closer to L ri or by, but those don't have rafsi).

lo fo la je nmssa mlta vska'aka mlno.  sa dza xkra.  ra dza ctka.  la dza je'u klma'aka bjra.
I saw several cats (done event).  Some of them were black. All of them were eating.  They, after I approached them, ran.

Right now, I'd say:

lo fo la je nmssa mlta vska'aka mlno.  se [la je nmssa mlta] mneka xkre. re [la je nmssa mlta] mneka ctke.  je'u [la je nmssa mlta] klma'aka [la je nmssa mlta] bjra.

Then we could have all variables except special ones implicitly simply bound by "lV dzV".  The difference with "tfV" is that "dzV" refers back to something already referenced, and "tfV" is more glorkative.

This is just brainstorming on my part.


> Intuitively I think we should either change "kkn" or add something new
> that means "x1 is able to be (l- property) x2".

Yes, "le mvde na kknake" makes more sense.


> Here's my updated version going back two sentences.
>
> la je lo fo li dnli tnlaki na mlno qbo'aqa snxa'ika. la tja la'i cskxra'i
> fkpaka'i.
>
> la je li ckti nnraki cske'uka hu «la qbo'aqa le kltake ju na mrxake ju
> mlne tnlake. ne'u li mvdi na kknaki. lo je ne'ako ctrco'e li msti skoki
> ne'ako spna» huka
>
> ctrc < ctiru'e "digestion".
>
> The last sentence in the quote is interesting:
> lo je ne'ako ctrco'e li msti skoki ne'ako spna
> The duration of digestion that is months six is the duration that A
> sleeps.

So:

ne'u = lo blvoko'e fo
ne'akV = lo dtcVko fo


?

co ma'a xrxe

I can't figure out what "dtc" means.  My idea for "je'a" and "ne'a" was:

je'a F1 F2
= lo fo F1 lu fu F2 cbnuko
= "While F1, F2"

ne'a F2
= lu fu F2 cbnuko'e
= "Meanwhile, F2"

I think "cbn" could most broadly be interpreted to mean "The duration of event x1 temporally overlaps with the duration of event x2".  If so, we could give "cbn" an x3 metrically specifying the duration of that overlap, and allow a free variable in the "ne'akV" and "je'akV":

je'ake F1 F2
= lo fo F1 lu fu F2 cbnukoke
= "For duration E, while F1, F2"

ne'ake F2
= lu fu F2 cbnuko'eke
= "For duration E, meanwhile, F2" = "For duration E, F2"

Likewise, we could give "prc" and "blv" an x3 metrically specifying the temporal offset separating x1 and x2:

je'i[ke] F1 F2
= lo fo F1 lu fu F2 prcuko[ke]
[Some amount of time(e)] before F1, F2.

je'u[ke] F1 F2
= lo fo F1 lu fu F2 blvuko[ke]
[Some amount of time(e)] after F1, F2.

ne'i[ke] F2
= lu fu F2 prcuko'e[ke]
[Some amount of time(e)] earlier, F2.

ne'u[ke] F2
= lu fu F2 blvuko'e[ke]
[Some amount of time(e)] later, F2.

Those operators would handle: while, before, after; and the related metrics: how long, how long ago, how long afterward.  One thing we don't have is the 'punctual' sense "when" as opposed to "while".  I think that sense "when" probably can be handled as "immediately after" + the aspect meaning "begin".  So:

la mlta lo nlo je'uko [event begins] klma'aka, bjra.
The cat, in no time after I begin to approach it, runs.

... which seems to mean roughly:

When I approach the cat, it runs.

... but which is not the same as:

la mlta je'a klma'aka, bjra.
The cat, while I approach it, runs.

--
co ma'a mke

Xorban blog: Xorban.wordpress.com
My LL blog: Loglang.wordpress.com