[YG Conlang Archives] > [jboske group] > messages [Date Index] [Thread Index] >
john:
> And Rosta scripsit:
>
> > CLL explicitly states that {coi xirma}, {doi xirma} are ambiguous
> > between {coi/doi la xirma} and {coi/doi le xirma}.
>
> Where do you see this? 6.11 seems to me to say that doi xirma means
> doi le xirma only
Page 183 -- sec 9 of the relative clause chapter, first para.
> > There is a further wrinkle, though, which is that I take
> > {doi/coi le xirma} to mean "I hereby address/greet a certain
> > horse".
>
> Not necessarily: "le" is +specific +/-definite, but you are reading
> it as +specific -definite, which is too, er, specific. The +specific
> +definite reading of "doi (le) xirma" is quite apt: "O thing I have in mind,
> more-or-less aptly described as a horse!" If you believe you are what I have
> in mind, you should listen even if you are not, objectively speaking,
> a horse.
OK. Using a +definite gloss, then we have "I hereby address/greet it the
horse".
The key point is that {doi le} first establishes the referent of {le}
and then says that it is being greeted/addressed.
> Being named Horse is neither here nor there
This is not clear from Woldy.
--And.