[YG Conlang Archives] > [jboske group] > messages [Date Index] [Thread Index] >
Nick:
> cu'u la .and
>
> > Lojbab:
> > > >I see what you're also doing is saying:
> > > >
> > > >{le} is +specific -veridical
> > > >{lo} is -specific +veridical
> > > >
> > > >If we had a -specific -veridical, we'd have the solution to our
> > > >problems
> > >
> > > I would imagine that there are a couple of UI discursives already in
> > the
> > > language that would convey -specific,
> >
> > I don't think so. The best hope would be to use something like {kau}
> > that
> > is known to be a meaningless diacritic
>
> Just as I've worked out for myself (with your prodding) a meaningful
> formal sense of {kau}? Oh no you don't. {kau}'s taken, and I won't have
> it subverted..
If you explained it, I didn't grock the explanation.
> > > and if the only point is to address
> > > possibly non-existent things like unicorns, I don't see why leda'i
> > -unicorn
> > > doesn't convey that
> > The BF will have to rule on whether this (ab)use of da'i that has been
> > established through usage is official
>
> Inasmuch as the BPFK has to rule what the hell da'i means, yes
Right, but for reasons I won't go into now (because after all this
is Christmas Day & families need to be attended to), I think the
mainstream usage of it (of which many years ago I was an early exponent)
is somewhat dire.
> > Addressing possibly nonexistent things like unicorns is not the only
> > point, but that is not to say that Intensional gadri don't have
> > Intensionalless paraphrases
>
> *shrug* da'icu'i? 'May or may not be in existence in the real world?'
Doesn't cover all the cases, even if it might cover some. I will
post my attempt at paraphrases of all types of Intensional when I
have time to write it.
--And.