[YG Conlang Archives] > [jboske group] > messages [Date Index] [Thread Index] >


[Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next]

RE: [jboske] scope issues




la and cusku di'e

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.

How is it less general? I would have said it was at least equally
general. (Each version leaves something out that can't be said with
afterthought connection.) My version is the one reflected in the
grammar, that's the only reason I prefer it.

But it would be a rule specific to GIhE, whereas mine pertains
to all afterthought coordination.

You have to know where the first conjunct starts, but if the
second conjunct can have a tag it is reasonable to expect that
the first one can too (and that is what the grammar does). I
don't see why the rule is specific to GIhE.

Who knows whether there even was any intention one way or the
other?

Maybe there wasn't any intention, but that is how it turned out.
If the consensus is to do it the other way then the grammar
should be fixed. I have no strong preference for one or the
other at the moment. Indeed I avoid using any tag or negation
in that position because of those doubts.

mu'o mi'e xorxes


_________________________________________________________________
Broadband?�Dial-up? Get reliable MSN Internet Access. http://resourcecenter.msn.com/access/plans/default.asp