[YG Conlang Archives] > [jboske group] > messages [Date Index] [Thread Index] >
xod:
> 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!
poi'i is syntactically a NU, but, as you say, is not an abstraction.
The only difference I can see between ke'a and ce'u is:
(1) two ke'a are coreferential, two ce'u are not coreferential;
(2) ke'a is syntactically bound, ce'u is not
> > #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.
I agree. If we came to feel there was a significant need for them
in usage, we would need to seek something less unwieldly.
> You can probably use su'u
> with several unsubscripted ce'us to achieve your meaning
How?
> > #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
I was indeed assuming that argument.
> > #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
Maybe that is the meaning that one would glork, but the actual literal
meaning of jaika is surely much vaguer. And some of us are interested
in being able to avoid an excess of vagueness.
--And.