[YG Conlang Archives] > [jboske group] > messages [Date Index] [Thread Index] >
pc:
> a.rosta@hidden.email writes:
>
> <<
>
> Me being such an anglophone, I have problems with that maxim,
> since it doesn't apply to English at all.
>
> >>
> Is Britspeak really that different from Yankspeak?
No, I mean it's a feature of English rather than British English.
In cases where English grammar regulates the presence or absence
of referential dependency, repetition normally indicates referential
independence:
John said that John would come.
The man said that the man would come.
If John is late, John will be sacked.
If the man is late, the man will be sacked.
is read with the two NPs noncoreferential, absent some special
context or rhetorical effect. And of course that reading is even
harder to resist with:
John loves John.
The man loves the man.
[...]
> <<
> You could create an experimental Lojban cmavo for lambda (e.g.
> ce'au, in PA), if you were convinced there was a need.
> >>
> As John points out, that was what {ce'u} was to do originally but it
> got sidetracked -- thoeuhg whether by verbosity or general
> incomprehension I am not sure. In any case, a new form is not
> needed, just would be nice to avoid some of the runarounds that the
> present version requires. But runarounds are never a reason for
> adding new vocab.
I think they are, if the result (of adding new vocab) is that the
lexical form can directly mirror the logical form.
--And.