[YG Conlang Archives] > [jboske group] > messages [Date Index] [Thread Index] >
zorzes: #la and cusku di'e # #> A B C zo'u #>= (zo'u) ... zo'au A B C #>= A zo'u ... zo'au B C #>= (zo'u) B zo'u ... zo'au C zo'au A #>= (zo'u) (zo'u) (zo'u) ... zo'au C zo'au B zo'au A #>= A zo'u zo'u ... zo'au C zo'au B #>= A zo'u C zo'u ... zo'au zo'au B # #I think this is nice, and also the Right Thing for the #interpretation of several zo'u-zo'au, but I have my doubts #about usability of the forms that require forethought, #i.e. more than one zo'u. (Several zo'au is ok, because #that's afterthought.) Forethought is the ineluctable price of precision and unambiguity. A good afterthought device might be a marker that says "the following sumti isn't necessarily quantified with the scope you would expect it to have, given its position; please glork the intended scope from context". #Also, not all orders are obtainable. #For example, you can't present the terms in BAC order or #CAB order, can you? Largest scope must always appear at #one of the ends. That's right. Nature has its limits. I suppose BAC and CAB could be got by some other novel device (such as an anti-koi'a such a quantified sumti bound to an anti-koi'a is quantified in the position occupied by the antikoi'a), but it would go beyond what I proposed, and would reflect the greater complexity of BAC and CAB. I won't propose an antikoi'a at the moment, because I haven't written enough Lojban to have felt a pressing need for it yet. --And.