[YG Conlang Archives] > [jboske group] > messages [Date Index] [Thread Index] >
On Fri, Dec 13, 2002 at 04:08:25PM -0500, Invent Yourself wrote:
> On Fri, 13 Dec 2002, And Rosta wrote:
[...]
> > #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.
It may technically be more baseline compliant, but I think the ka
thing is better because it's something ka really should have anyway
(using ckaji for this is both clumsy and incomplete because a ka
can have N variables).
> > #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?
The x2 of ka is I think, but not the xn ka, afaik.
> Subscripted ce'us are unwieldy for actual use. You can probably use su'u
> with several unsubscripted ce'us to achieve your meaning.
That's why there'd be a left-to-right default.
> > #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.
No I mean with the variables reduced:
ka ce'u broda ce'uxire
has 2 free variables
ka ce'u broda ce'uxire kei be le gerku
has 1 free variable
ka ce'u broda ce'uxire kei be le gerku bei le mlatu
has no free variables and is exactly equivalent to
du'u le gerku cu broda le mlatu
> > #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.
Yeah, my argument at the time was that su'u allows anything.
--
Jordan DeLong - fracture@hidden.email
lu zo'o loi censa bakni cu terzba le zaltapla poi xagrai li'u
sei la mark. tuen. cusku
Attachment:
binww7iKT88Kx.bin
Description: application/ygp-stripped