Re: ago24 & replies

[ucleaar <ucleaar@ucl.ac.uk>]

pc:
> (I assume that Griecan pragmatics is not the Freudian psychology of lin-
>        guistics, but that that some possible turns of phrase cannot be
>        explained to carry some meanings).

Could you have another go at saying that? I didn't understand.

>        Finally, some of the shifts seem just pointless, if not counter-
>        productive. Some of the above may be of that sort, but the shift
>        of _lo_broda_ from "all broda" to "some broda," both of which are
>        redundant for Qda poi constructions and much less efficient in
>        that role, strikes me as an especially clear case of change for
>        change sake and without regard to further consequences.

What used {lo broda} to mean, or what should it mean if it were not
redundant with Q da poi?

>        Some Notes on Related Threads
>        1. I see _xo'u_ is still alive.

It is barely alive, being savaged by Jorge's incisive assaults and
supported only by my feeble advocacy.

> Good! The move to the heqad of the highest prenex is simply the
> simplest rule and the one that seems to be involved most often
> in natural languages

What the **** is a heqad? It looks Arabic, & hasn't made it into the
OED (1st ed).

> Some of the comments on _xo'u_ seem to be
>        more appropriate to whatever it is that marks terms in opaque
>        contexts that can shine through the opacity and be taken to have
>        external reference.

Why shouldn't {xohu} fulfil this function?

>        3.  The thing And wants for this sibling problem, one from column
>        A and one from column J is a Cartesian product, for which we once
>        had a cmavo in JOI, though I cannot now lex it.

Can anyone elaborate on this for my benefit? The problem is how to
say "mothers of fathers of Jorge and And" (such that J & A are not
siblings) without expanding to {lo mamta be lo patfu be J beho beho
e lo mamta be lo patfu be A}.

>        5. If we are to have lambda variable, we need a slough of them,
>        since the whole point of lambdacism is that different ones can be
>        replaced differently.  In particular, _lo ka kea mamta kea_ is
>        not the mother relation but the self-mother relation (one that
>        rarely holds except for the odd goddess), since _kea_ must be
>        replaced by the same term in all its occurrences on each applica-
>        tion.

To the severely limited extent that I understand this, it seems to me
that (a) you could solve the need for a slough (a slew?) by subscripting,
and (b) something other than {keha} should be used, since in relative
clauses {keha} appears to behave very differently (though I daren't
venture to attempt to say how).

---
And