[YG Conlang Archives] > [engelang group] > messages [Date Index] [Thread Index] >
On Tue, Oct 2, 2012 at 3:54 PM, And Rosta <and.rosta@hidden.email> wrote:
>
> But on reflection it might be better to say that it is Qa that
> (syntactically) binds va, and that
>
> Qa [... va ...] bcda
>
> predicates bcd of {[... ni ...], [... nu ...]}.
Would you also be happy with the reverse situation, with va appearing
in the predication rather than the restriction:
la prfraka'a je va ldra ckfa
"My preference is for milky (as opposed to whether-or-not milky) coffee."
> > [ca lu xsra'aku fu] lo ni'u[ku] vndo ju plnako gsnake
> > "[Hereby my assertion is that] it is poison rather than whatever that
> > was used by A in doing E"
> >
> > la je frmra si xsli je pnsaki ni'u drxaki msta
> > "Farmers that own some donkey and DO beat it are most." (most, that
> > is, with respect to farmers that own some donkey whether they beat it
> > or not).
> >
> > You could use "ni'uka" there for more precision, for "msta" to claim
> > that focus, but I think it's unnecessary because there's nothing else
> > competing for it. Does that sound half right?
>
> I can see how you get from ni'u to the interpretations. I'm not sure that
> we need a focus marker or that the best way of getting one is a unary
> operator, but I have no stronger objection to it than that. And yes, for
> precision the niukV version is needed.
OK, I will free up v- and replace it with ni'u and ni'uk-
co ma'a xrxe