[YG Conlang Archives] > [jboske group] > messages [Date Index] [Thread Index] >
I'm sending this to jboske rather than the BF, so as to get a sense whether others might agree with me. I have a strong hunch that people will always forget the goatleg rule, which says that (1) means (2) and not (3) (1) Have you got five quid? [request for a loan] (2) xu do ponse su'o mu zilrupnu (3) xu do ponse mu zilrupnu Generalizing, "PA broda cu brode" means "the set of all broda that brode has cardinality PA" rather than "there is a set of broda that brode and it has cardinality PA". I wonder whether it would be desirable to abolish the goatleg rule and make the interpretation of "PA broda" reliant on glorking, like English. Where necessary, disambiguation could be done by using a more explicit logical formula. On the wiki, I proposed (iirc) "lau'a PA broda cu broda" as a way of saying "there is a set of PA broda that brode", but I doubt very much whether that would be palatable to the BF. --And.