[YG Conlang Archives] > [jboske group] > messages [Date Index] [Thread Index] >
On Fri, 13 Dec 2002, And Rosta wrote:
> Jordan:
> #>>> fracture@hidden.email 12/13/02 05:30am >>>
> #On Thu, Dec 12, 2002 at 11:11:12PM -0600, Jordan DeLong wrote:
> #[...]
> #> poi'i gives you the identity abstractor, and it is one of the few
> #> of And's (extreemly numerous) experimentals which could maybe be
> #> useful. I don't like that it reuses ke'a though.
poi'i resembles poi, including its use of ke'a, but it's a NU. But wacky
NUs already have a variable: ce'u. Yet on the other hand, the first place
of poi'i is not an abstraction!
> #Actually, xorxes mentions on the wiki that if you accept x2 of ka
> #you can just use se ka instead of poi'i for this. Which is a bit
> #nicer imho:
>
> I agree. I let the poi'i proposal stand because currently poi'i is
> baseline conformant and se ka is not.
>
> #I would actually like to see the byfy maybe consider modifying the
> #place structure of ka so that x2-xn are places for filling in lambda
> #variables. Which variables are filled by which place could be
> #specified by subscripts (ce'uxipa is x2, ce'uxire is x3, etc) or
> #assumed left to right otherwise.
>
> I like this idea. Is it on the wiki yet?
Subscripted ce'us are unwieldy for actual use. You can probably use su'u
with several unsubscripted ce'us to achieve your meaning.
> #A ka with every variable filled would the same as a du'u.
If you mean a du'u/ka with every tergi'u filled with a ce'u, that's si'o,
according to unofficial but un-challenged lore.
> #Also, note that if any identity-capable method for NU is accepted
> #it will put to rest the issue of people complaining when I use
> #tu'a/jai for metonymy. (klama fu tu'a mi == klama fu leseka ce'u
> #karce mi)
>
> Did those people complain that it was wrong, or just hard to guess
> what you meant? I can't see how it could be wrong.
Mark did, because membership in a poi can't be extracted out with a NU,
making tu'a inappropriate. Unless there is a NU that does identity. It can
be argued, of course, that su'u already does anything, so any relationship
can be hacked with tu'a.
> #One other point this made me think of: "le" wouldn't be the default
> #on a "se ka" like it is on normal "ka", as there's probably a number
> #of things which can fill in the variable---so "le" is just used if
> #you know which thing.
>
> Of course. {se ka ce'u broda} is equivalent to {broda}, so each takes
> the full range of gadri.
jaika provides us with an identity abstractor. {lo jaika ce'u xunre} is
one or more individual things that are red.
--
jipno se kerlo
re mei re mei degji kakne