[YG Conlang Archives] > [jboske group] > messages [Date Index] [Thread Index] >
xorxes:
> la and cusku di'e
>
> >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.
>
> Yes, I agree. Ideally it would be possible to define a new
> simplified grammar that matches more closely the grammar that
> one learns, though.
>
> >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 ] }"
>
> And also, I suppose:
>
> "ko'a { [ broda su'o da ] gi'e [ na brode ] }"
Yes, and even
"ko'a pu { [ broda ] gi'e [ ba brode ] }"
> So in effect you're saying that {gi'e} is not symmetric,
> because the second term can have sebri tags of its own
> but the first term can't, as its selbri tags must always
> be shared with the second term.
Yes. Not that I'm saying this is a desirable outcome in itself,
but it is a consequence of the simplest and most workable policy
for establishing the conjuncts of afterthought coordination.
If you can come up with a different but equally robust rule,
then that would be equally satisfactory.
Of course, your version -- treating gi'e as bridi tail coordination
and defining the bridi tail as everything following the cu (i.e.
the preselbri sumti) -- is workable but just less general.
> It's a possible way of doing it, but it doesn't match the
> syntax. I'm not yet sure what The Right Thing is.
>
> In practice, it happens very often that I write
> {na broda gi'e} and then I stop to think what
> is it that I'm negating, and since I'm never sure
> I change to {broda na gi'e}.
And me I'd do {na ge broda gi} or {ge na broda gi}. I still
haven't learnt the afterthought connectives properly.
> >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.
>
> I'm not sure that the principle that selbri-tags go with
> their selbri only would be so hard to learn, especially
> considering the symmetry.
But it would be a rule specific to GIhE, whereas mine pertains
to all afterthought coordination.
> But if the intention was to
> have the selbri tags have greater scope than the bridi-tail
> connectives, then it is hard to see why the syntax couldn't
> have reflected that. It doesn't seem like a forced mismatch
> at all.
Who knows whether there even was any intention one way or the
other?
--And.