[YG Conlang Archives] > [engelang group] > messages [Date Index] [Thread Index] >
On Mon, Oct 22, 2012 at 4:16 PM, John E. Clifford <kali9putra@hidden.email> wrote: > > Well, that does clarify things a bit: dz is a predicate that extends the scope of a previous binder into the next sentence. Note that it is strictly unnecessary for l (and practically unnecessary in any case). I'm not sure how "dz-" extends the scope of a previous binder. It seems to me that we have separate bindimngs for each sentence: na sa xjra le strde ctkake. [la dza] li rlci dksaki. No pig oysters eats. [Pigs] are delicate in excess. If we extended the scope of s- into the next sentence we would get the wrong meaning: na sa xjra je le strde ctkake li rlci dksaki. No pig (oysters eats & is delicate in excess). > Li rlci dkseki is sorta ridiculous; it assumes an ordered class with our group off at one end. "Excessive" is just beyond a certain boundary, it doesn't have to be at the end. > It would be more natural, it seems to me, to make the modification in the property rather than the class. Natlangs don't seem to favor mentioning a property for this: "This is too bright" rather than "this has too much brightness". "This is too much of a burden" rather than "this has too much ?burdenness". Bringing up a property seems unnecessary. > If you are worried, as you seem to be, about using up letters, you would be better finding a way to talk about properties -- in both senses -- than this bit of frill. What are the two senses of properties? co ma'a xrxe