[YG Conlang Archives] > [jboske group] > messages [Date Index] [Thread Index] >
la and cusku di'e
What I don't understand is that you're saying to xod that his version differs from CLL, yet apparently also that the two versions mean the same thing, analogously to: dunda lo cukta la djan dunda fi la djan fe lo cukta If there is a truthconditional difference between xod's reading and the CLL reading, what is it?
The part that was against CLL is that besides letting {ze'a} be
a succesion of times rather than a single interval (which may not
be explicitly against CLL) he allowed the scope of this to cover
the previous {lo}. So he gave to {la djan darxi lo nanmu ze'a le
jeftu} the meaning that you gave to {la djan darxi ze'a le jeftu
lo nanmu}.
I give the same meaning to both. The meaning you gave to
{la djan darxi lo nanmu ze'a le jeftu}.
Xod gave the same meaning to both. The meaning you gave to
{la djan darxi ze'a le jeftu lo nanmu}.
The part that is against CLL is giving to {la djan darxi lo nanmu
ze'a le jeftu} the meaning you give to {la djan darxi ze'a le jeftu
lo nanmu}, because you'd be taking scope in reverse order of
appearance. In other words if ze'a has scope, it has scope over
what follows, not over what came before. Xod was taking it to
have scope, and to have scope over what came before. I don't
think it has scope, but if it had, it would have to be over
what comes after only (i.e. the way you had it).
Have I succeeded in confusing you even more?
mu'o mi'e xorxes
_________________________________________________________________
Get faster connections�-- switch to�MSN Internet Access!
http://resourcecenter.msn.com/access/plans/default.asp