[YG Conlang Archives] > [jboske group] > messages [Date Index] [Thread Index] >
xorxes:
> la and cusku di'e
>
> >2. I frown upon afterthought connectives, but they're probably not
> >too harmful if we apply the rule that they take the narrowest
> >possible scope.
>
> But I think the narrowest possible in this case still covers {na}.
> Consider: {ko'a broda su'o da gi'e brode}. That has to be
> ge ko'a broda su'o da gi ko'a brode}. Because of its very nature
> {gi'e} has to have scope over the bridi-tails, even the one that
> comes before it. The only doubt is whether {na} in {na broda
> gi'e brode} belongs to the first bridi-tail or not. From the
> grammar there is no doubt it belongs there.
Since the syntax was created independently of meaning, I am loath
to attribute semantic significance to it. Furthermore, the
official syntax is so perverse and peculiar that one shouldn't
be obliged to learn it. It should be sufficient that one learns
which strings are and aren't licit, without learning the official
generative rules. In technical terms, it should be sufficient
that one learns a grammar that is weakly equivalent in generative
capacity to the official grammar.
You are right of course about {ko'a broda su'o da gi'e brode},
but the principle of minimizing the conjuncts -- as I advocate
-- yields
"ko'a { [ broda su'o da ] gi'e [ brode ] }".
But the same principle yields
"ko'a na { [ broda su'o da ] gi'e [ brode ] }"
The principle I espouse is the easiest to learn and to apply. If
instead we have to delve into the structures assigned by the
official grammar, then madness lies in wait.
--And.