User:Laqme/Object-incorporating particle

Toaq could have an object-incorporating particle like Lojban's be. Let's call it «do» (in neutral tone).

The idea is that vẻrb do óbject is a new intransitive verb that has the object slot filled. So, fıeq do lúa means "___ invents the story."

Pủ fỉeq do lúa jí da.
I invented-the-story.

From another perspective, do just makes an object-incorporating verb out of the preceding verb: pỏga do acts the same as pỏ.

There are two cool things that fall out of this beyond just making strange "VOS" sentences:

1. Used with , it lets us say things like fíeq do lúa "the inventor of the story" (Lojban le finti be le lisri).
2. Used with , it lets us get rid of by phrasing shàq jío as shãq do jío: "in front of the building". So this particle realizes Full Arguments.

Opacity

Current object-incorporating verbs are said to be "opaque": quantifications like po tu poq are restricted to the small "po + object clause", rather than the encompassing clause.

Another way to think about this is that the quantifications don't leave the definition of the new verb.

Thus po tu pỏq always means "[∀P: poq(P)] ___ is P's", or in English: "___ is everyone's".

And thus po tu pỏq sa kủa means "some rooms are everyone's", regardless of the other quantifiers in the sentence, and not something like "∀[P: poq(P)] ∃[K: kua(K)] K is P's."

I'm not sure if hao do should be "opaque" in the same way, but I think it makes sense. Consequences include:

1. Fíeq do sıa lua means "the one who invents no stories" rather than "no story's inventor".
2. Lỉaı gão do tu rua sa apı means something different from the old Lỉaı gào tu rua sa apı. This might be fine? Not sure which is more intuitive. Either is still achievable with prenex.