Since the phonology seems (formally) more-or-less complete, I have created a phonology description for CX over at my blog. It’s unofficial and my own suggestion, but may be useful for newcomers:
I think that the situation on the ground is that phonological reform proposals, great and small, can wait for FX (Future Xorban).
The purpose of this essay is not to give some opinion on every curiosity and controversy associated with the semantics of the operator “l-“; far from it. The purpose is just to suggest one possible clear, rigorous way to reconcile the syntactic flexibility of “l-” with standard FOL and to account in a general way for the fact of its seemingly non-FOL semantics. The approach will be to define some function underlying “l-” that maps arbitrary formulas to one-place “singleton” predicates. It will be seen that the approach does not force any particular semantics onto “l-“; it does not, for example, either compel or bar intensional readings of l-expressions. In fact, there will be admitted many possible semantics for “l-“.
Version 2: “ju” with unary operator f-
The binary operator “ju” is similar to “je” except that it ensures that child formulas have the same event argument. In the simplest case it was initially proposed to mean
- ju S1 S2 => lE smE je S1fE S2fE
where S1 and S2 were simple formulas and E was some unique anonymous variable (-f- was originally an argument suffix, but is now a unary operator; “sm” is the nonrestrictive predicate, but it’s been replaced in this proposal by “sv”, meaning “composed/simultaneous event”). The meaning is “In composed event E, S1 is true and S2 is true” or very roughly “Simultaneously S1 and S2“.
Xorban: a minimalist loglang