[YG Conlang Archives] > [jboske group] > messages [Date Index] [Thread Index] >
| In a message dated 10/7/2002 2:23:30 PM Central Daylight Time, jjllambias@hidden.email writes: << >OK, I'll withdraw the word "function," if that is giviing you problems (it >> Why not indeed and yet it does not look right, I agree. Well, as I said earlier, this does seem to say then that either {mutce le du'u ce'u broda ko'e} is the wrong reading for {mutce broda} is the wrong way to express this -- though I still think it lies in the in the selbri somehow (the common approach in logic). [From here on out, I am just spinning possibilities, not proposing any of them.] One possibility is {mutce le du'u ce'u broda ce'u}, which still leaves both {ko'a} and {ko'e} the same with respect to {broda} but very different with respect to {mutce} -- and not in a good way. So maybe this is a job for instant lujvos: just stick a {tce-} on any brivla and give it the brivla's place structure, but a new truth curve. And similarly for indefinitely (and thereby hangs a major objection) many other such modifiers. An alternative is to find an array of critters in something like SE for making new predicates out of old with regular relations between old and new -- but these probably have to be out in CVVVV by now. Another possibility would be to use tense-like markers which, in their sumti tcita role, could be used for something else (comments, say) or one of the handful of quantitative items various folk find here (not for quantities in the event, though, I think). But, no, it is just the various modifications on the basic notion that is needed at the inside-the-predicate level, not out in attached phrases, like comments. Ah well, since we can't even agree yet about what is needed or what they mean, maybe something ill have turned up by the time we have a scratch theory going. And, of course, if it ends up that these shifts are a long way from the selbri, it won't be the first time tht Logic and Lojban have come to different treatments in cases of this sort. That all this stuff gets lost completely would be a shame though. << {ja'a} is in NA. You may be thinking of {je'u} in UI, which seems more appropriate for the comment thing. {ja'a} gives the same type of transformation that {na} gives. It is the identity transformation. >> Dumber than that: knowing that {nacai} did not make sense, when I saw {ja'acai} parse, I leapt to it having a different grammar, forgetting to check whether {nacai} parses and then considering what was meant by saying that it did not make sense (as a unit -- it is fine as a sequence of structures --I can hardly wait for a grammar that has good connections with deep structure). This does not change my sense that they behave quite differently at the semantic level (as the old joke goes: "A double negation makes an affirmation, but a double affirmation does not make a negation." "Sure, sure."). However, {ja'a}, as NA might make a good carrier for modifiers -- though {je'a}, being scalar, might be better. |