[YG Conlang Archives] > [jboske group] > messages [Date Index] [Thread Index] >
On Mon, 21 Jul 2003, And Rosta wrote:
> xod:
> > On Sat, 19 Jul 2003, Robin Lee Powell wrote:
> >
> > > On Fri, Jul 18, 2003 at 07:01:19PM +0300, Robin Turner wrote:
> > > > When I said "you would only use it", I didn't mean "you can never
> > > > use it in any other way." Unbound ko'a is grammatical, but
> > > > stylistically I think it's malglico.
> > >
> > > I disagree.
> > >
> > > le mi mamta mamta cu mutce nelci le karce .i ko'a ji'a nelci le
> > > ladru
> > >
> > > I don't see that anyone's going to have much confusion there, and
> > > since I presumably intend to deliver a bunch more sentences
> > > involving le mi mamta mamta, it seems a reasonable thing to do.
> >
> > This is not the most convincing use of unbound ko'a, for reasons which
> > have already been discovered.
> >
> > Suppose we want to introduce a new variable, without claiming existence,
> > and which lasts longer than da does (gets reset after every bridi, they
> > say!) but by position, without altering the bridi structure simply to
> > expose the sumti for goiery?
> >
> > le mi mamta mamta cu nelci le karce be fi ko'a .i ku'i ko'a ckape .i ko
> > stidi ma mi
>
> I don't see a difference between your usage and Robin's. Both of them
> seem okay to me.
But the differences are obvious: ko'a refers to a sumti that was already
explicitly referred to, so in this case ko'a could more clearly have been
expressed by ra, or ko'a could have been assigned explicitly with goi.
These alternative options led Jorge to "interpret" that ko'a referred to
na'ebo my.
In my case, the value of ko'a was NEVER explicitly expressed. It is to be
inferred from the 2 places in which it is found; it is obviously a
leterkarce and a leckape.
It is like implicit differentiation, for those who can't be bothered to
unravel the expression to get it into a normal form.
> But the notion of "introducing a new variable, without claiming
> existence, and which lasts longer than da does" makes no sense to me.
> A variable is a blank slot in a proposition (as is the more clearly
> understood case with ce'u). A quantifier takes a proposition with
> a blank slot and says that some/every/etc. full proposition that completes
> the incomplete proposition by filling in the blank with a value is true.
> (If bare {da} didn't -- usefully -- default to {su'o da}, then we could
> have used {da} instead of ce'u. Indeed, we can still use {tu'o da} instead
> of {ce'u}.)
>
> I don't mean to say that the idea you're trying to get at makes no
> sense, though. Can you give some examples, in English, of what you
> would like to be able to say/do?
English?! Oh, how barbaric!
--
The Pentagon group believed it had a visionary strategy that would
transform Iraq into an ally of Israel, remove a potential threat to the
Persian Gulf oil trade and encircle Iran with U.S. friends and allies...