[YG Conlang Archives] > [jboske group] > messages [Date Index] [Thread Index] >
| In a message dated 10/16/2002 2:51:16 PM Central Daylight Time, a.rosta@hidden.email writes: << > (2a) lo cipni cu blabi gi'e na vofli >> There is also the question of the status of the move from {lo cipni ...} to {su'o da poi cipni zo'i da ...}. Is this immanent or transcendant? That is, does it take place within the sentence formation or after the sentence is formed. The the {su'o} embedded in {le cipni} might be affected is one thing, that the transformation in question might be affected is another. So, for example, the {na} of one part of a compound bridi may only front on the part -- the smallest assertive bridi in which it occurs (or the one next to whose selbri it immediately occurs): see the case of {gi'enai} where the connective is the head and the negation subordinate to it. The official version may not be wrong, just in need of (a lot of) clarification. << . I think the safest rule for afterthough connectives would be to take the narrowest possible scope >> That would be a good clarifier, too. << > If this is correct, then comparing {lo cipni cu na vofli} with > {lo cipni cu na vofli gi'e blabi} we see that the final {gi'e blabi} > completely turns around the first part. Very weird... ... which shows that it can't be correct. Something's gotta give. >> How is it again that adding {gi'e blabi} turns the whole around? It seems to just add another factor, without changing what is there. Taking the {na} out would give {naku ro da poi cipni zo'u ga da vofli ginai da blabi} , which seems to say the same thing though less clearly. |