In a message dated 4/10/2002 3:35:12 PM Central Daylight Time, araizen@newmail.net writes:Well, I'm not sure that this is the type of logic that's at the heart It is, of course, exactly the type of logic that is behind loglans: the grammar of the language is meant to be patterned on that of First Order Predicate Logic (Principia Mathematica or so). The rest of the "logical" part is later additions and vain and misguided hopes (and not related to Sapir-Whorf neither, since that is about grammar). <Probably analogy to English grammar and lack of thoughly thinking it through.> Sadly plausible, alas. <There are other problems; if 'le' is followed by a bridi, then the sumti would almost always need an explicit terminator, to avoid swallowing the next sumti, but it might be possible to work something out.> Not obvious, since it doesn't happen now and the change is insignificant (indeed, non-existent, so far as I can see -- well, if you allow delayed connections to LE, ...). Notice that I would expect some visible differences between sumti in a sumti bridi and those in a sentential or predicate bridi -- in this case not dropping the fundamental hooks, {be/bei} (it turns out that the selbri in a sumti has to be a degenerate tanru to get these things in! hysteron proteron). |