[YG Conlang Archives] > [jboske group] > messages [Date Index] [Thread Index] >
Lojbab:
> At 03:58 PM 1/5/03 +0000, And Rosta wrote:
> >xorxes:
> > > la and cusku di'e
> > >
> > > > > LAhEs lose much of their
> > > > > reason of being if they are transparent to quantifiers
> > > >
> > > >I agree. If you assume that LAhE is a tool well-designed for its
> > > >job, then it turns out to have less useful a job than if you
> > > >just think "here's a tool, what can it most usefully be used for?"
> > >
> > > Also, if we want {tu'a} to work like all other LAhEs, they
> > > have to be opaque
> >
> >Or, in a true grammar of Lojban, tu'a would belong to a different
> >wordclass
>
> selma'o do not necessarily provide ANY clue about semantics, only about
> syntax. If the syntax of tu'a is identical to the syntax of la'e, then
> they are the same selma'o, regardless of what the words mean
This is correct. The official grammar of Lojban is not a true grammar
precisely because it says nothing about semantics, and selma'o are
not true wordclasses, for the same reason.
> > > I'm not sure I see the point of having LAhE at all if they
> > > are transparent
> >
> >When you have true functions, treating them as predicates
> >involves redundant quantification (or some other redundant sort
> >of gadri use). Transparent LAhE avoid this redundancy
> >
> >It is unfortunate that there is no counterpart of {fi'o} that
> >turns a selbri into a LAhE, so that {xi'o mamta ko'a} would
> >mean "ko'a's mother". I can't just propose it as an experimental
> >cmavo, though, because it would involve a grammar change
>
> This makes no sense. Drop the meanings and talk about the syntax. If your
> xi'o were a FIhO then it would glom onto the mamta (but not the ko'a)
> inserting a fe'u before ko'a and create a something which would have the
> grammar of a tense/modal, which when followed by ko'a becomes a modal
> phrase term
>
> My best guess as to what you are asking for is a XIhO such that
> XIhO selbri XEhU
> is a qualifier_483 along with LAhE and NAhE+BO. That would indeed be a
> grammar change and probably longwinded overkill for whatever it is you
> really want to do
fi'o takes a selbri and yields a BAI. xi'o takes a selbri and yields
a LAhE.
XEhU would, I think, always be elidable.
You don't explain why you think it is longwinded overkill.
> The present way to talk about ko'a mother without relying on gadri would
> seem to be
> da poi mamta ko'a
> possibly with a non-default quantifier on da
> I'm not sure whether whatever you are trying for can't be done in the
> same way
{da poi mamta ko'a} involves quantification over things that are
{mamta be ko'a}. The quantification is redundant. {xi'o} would
give us a way to do the "mother of" function that pc was long
searching for.
--And.