[YG Conlang Archives] > [engelang group] > messages [Date Index] [Thread Index] >
On Thu, Sep 20, 2012 at 6:46 AM, And Rosta <and.rosta@hidden.email> wrote: > Jorge Llambías, On 20/09/2012 02:45: > > > > I think the two readings are not related to where the "na" is respect > > to Napoleon, but rather where you put the tense: > > Yes, I agree, but if "la bcda na fgha" is necessarily equivalent to "na la > bcda fgha", then "la bcda na fgha" can be equivalent only to "la bcda na [at > some point in time:] fgha" and not to "la bcda [at some point in time:] na > fgha", I don't see why, but maybe I don't understand what you mean by "can be equivalent to". It can be interpreted that way, it doesn't have to be interpreted that way, so I'm not saying it is necessarily equivalent to that. "la bcda na fgha" makes no reference to any time. It doesn't say whether this is supposed to hold at some unspecified time, at all times, at the time in question, or anything like that. But the speaker may very well mean for it to be understood that way. All of these interpretations of "la bcda na fgha" (among others) are possible: (1) la bcda na [si smi fi] fgha = la bcda [ri smi] na [fi] fgha (2) la bcda na [ri smi fi] fgha = la bcda [si smi] na [fi] fgha (3) la bcda na [li di smi fi] fgha = la bcda [li di smi] na [fi] fgha "na la bcda fgha" has all of those available as well: (1) na la bcda [si smi fi] fgha = [ri smi] na la bcda [fi] fgha (2) na la bcda [ri smi fi] fgha = [si smi] na la bcda [fi] fgha (3) na la bcda [li di smi fi] fgha = [li di smi] na la bcda [fi] fgha >and so for the latter I was suggesting "la bcda si smi fi na fgha", > which still seems to me the best available solution. Yes, that works to specify reading (2). What I don't understand is why you say that the form without any f- can only have reading (1). > If "la bcda na fgha" > were ambiguous wrt the location of implicit tense (-- which would not be a > felicitous ambiguity) then it couldn't be inherently equivalet to "na la > bcda fgha". But there is no implicit "at some point in time", just as there is no implicit "according to the rules of some country", or any implicit "at some church", or anything else which could be added at different points of "Napoleon wasn't married to Josephine" to get analogous ambiguities. If it's not clear what time you are talking about, there's no reason you have to assume either "at some time" or "at every time". If the sentence is ambiguous it's only because the speaker didn't give all the specifications they needed to give. The grammar shouldn't force any implicit tense. co ma'a xrxe