[YG Conlang Archives] > [jboske group] > messages [Date Index] [Thread Index] >
Xorxes & I have proposed the following.
1. LAhE is equivalent to {lo pa BRODA be}.
2. PA LE is equivalent to {PA LAhE (tu'o) LE}, with LAhE glorked.
As xorxes points out, this leads to recursion:
{PA LAhE (tu'o) LE}
> {PA lo pa BRODA be (tu'o) LE}
> {PA LAhE (tu'o) lo pa BRODA be (tu'o) LE}
I'd like to suggest an alternative.
A. Where XS has involved LAhE (for Member (lu'a), Subkind and Avatar),
use new ME instead.
B. Ideally, move all LAhE to ME, or, failing that, create in ME
counterparts of the more useful LAhE.
C. Assign one of these functions to the ill-defined {me} itself.
D. ME is equivalent to {BRODA be}. [Uncontroversial.]
E. PA LE is equivalent to {PA da poi ke'a ME (tu'o) LE}, with ME glorked.
The attraction of this is:
(a) the equivalences are perhaps a little more simple & natural,
(b) the redundant selmaho LAhE is not used,
(c) the recursiveness of the equivalences is avoided,
(d) underlyingly, only da can be bound by a quantifier (i.e. the
equivalences take us closer to the underlying logic).
A wrinkle on this proposal is that adding new members to ME would raise
the question of what they all mean in the ME + MOI construction. But
there is anyway something wrong with the ME + MOI construction: ME is
a selbri, but MOI ordinarly requires a preceding mex. I conclude that
the ME + MOI construction should instead be MOhE + MOI and there should
be no special construction. A hitch here is that, according to my
unreliable reading of the grammar, MOI, like MAI and ROI can only
be preceded by a PA or lerfu, rather than by an operand in general.
That seems an undesirable restriction on MOI, MAI and ROI, and one that
should be fixed by a grammar change.
--And.