[YG Conlang Archives] > [jboske group] > messages [Date Index] [Thread Index] >
xorxes:
> 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?
No. I understand everything bar you saying that xod took it to
mean what you say he did! I thought xod took them both to mean
what you now say they both mean!
Well never mind, I agree with you about what everything should mean
and how each meaning can be expressed.
If you want to say "All over London, there are people homeless",
would you have to say:
fe'e ro roi lai london da ge prenu gi na se zdani de
?
--And.