[YG Conlang Archives] > [engelang group] > messages [Date Index] [Thread Index] >
On Fri, Sep 28, 2012 at 12:59 AM, Mike S. <maikxlx@gmail.com> wrote: >> >> >> >> formula := CCA | term formula | foretree formula | formula aftertree >> >> aftertree := HI | term aftertree | JA aftertree aftertree >> >> foretree := HE | term foretree | JA foretree foretree >> >> term := NA | LA formula | JA formula > > There is another solution possible though: (2) Certain terms in an prior > tree (namely bindings of variables not otherwise bound and "f-" terms) that > are not specifically overridden in the subsequent tree are assumed to be in > the inner tree as well (it generally won't make sense to apply "f-" to a > tree anyway, because trees aren't formulas and therefore can't have event > arguments; But trees are pseudo-formulas syntactically, and they are formulas semantically. I'm not sure why you say it won't make sense to apply f- to one. > and it doesn't harm anything to add more variable bindings). > Aftertrees would be considered more prior than foretrees, the better to > reflect their afterthought nature. This could not apply to "na", though. > Here's an example previously shown: > > lo ( fo la ma djna le nnle li crdi he )( le nxle li ckti he ) dndakike > "(O) is the situation in which John gives to the boy a radio and to the > girl a book." I think I'm missing something here. That can't be a complete sentence because "lo" is followed by a single formula. If we remove "lo", it could be "O is a situation in which John gives to the boy a radio and to the girl a book." but I don't see why it wouldn't be "(O is a situation in which John gives to the boy a radio) and (A gives the girl a book)." A would be taken to be John by the implicit binding rule, but it would not be explicitly bound. In order to get both events into O we do need "je": "fo la ma djna je le nnle li crdi he le nxle li ckti he dndakike" or "fo je la ma djna le nnle li crdi he le nxle li ckti he dndakike > Note that under solution (2) the second foretree will inherit the fronted > terms "fo, la ma djna" from the first foretree which would naturally consume > them and hide them. It wouldn't inherit "le nnle, li crdi" because "le nxle > li ckti" would block/override those bindings. > > It would work similarly either way. There are going to be some syntactic > restraints either way or any other way you can think of, and as I mentioned > I am in no rush to make these particles official before they're fully > tested. I do want to keep the formal grammar unambiguous though, so it will need to be considerably more complex if we want to keep he/hi. co ma'a xrxe