[YG Conlang Archives] > [jboske group] > messages [Date Index] [Thread Index] >
xorxes:
> la and cusku di'e
>
> >On this last point, btw, I've been thinking of proposing a
> >variety of poi'i that is allowed to override the left-to-right
> >scope rule, as a kind of reverse zo'u -- call it {zau'o} --
> >such that:
> >
> > ro le nanmu cu cinba su'o le ninmu
> >= zau'o ke'a goi ko'a zo'u zau'o ko'a cinba ke'a kei
> > fa su'o le ninmu kei fa ro le nanmu
> >
> > cinba su'o le ninmu fa ro le nanmu
> >= zau'o ke'a goi ko'a zo'u zau'o ke'a cinba ko'a kei
> > fa ro le nanmu kei fa su'o le ninmu
> >
> >-- This device allows for the postponement of long or focal
> >phrases even when they have scope over what goes before
>
> It would be useful to be able to do something like that,
> but in that form seems to me unusable, we don't want to
> start the sentence with all that repetitious empty words
> So we might in addition define the following:
> A new series in selma'o KOhA: koi'a, koi'e, koi'i, koi'o,
> koi'u (To be augmented with foi'a, foi'e, etc if needed.)
>
> The appearance of one of these pronouns signals that we
> must understand a prefixed {zau'o ke'a goi koi'a zo'u
> zau'o ke'a goi koi'e zo'u zau'u ke'a goi koi'i zo'u ...},
> as deep as we use koi'V
>
> Then we need a separator term to indicate where the
> regular terms end. This is really an inverse {zu'o},
> but with the grammar of a term. I'm not sure which selma'o
> is best for it, maybe a new selma'o but for the moment
> let's just put it in KOhA. Let's say {zo'au}
>
> The terms after {zo'au} are understood as the x1's of
> the implicit {zau'o}s, from deepest to shallowest. So your
> sentences become:
>
> ro le nanmu cu cinba su'o le ninmu
> = zau'o ke'a goi ko'a zo'u zau'o ko'a cinba ke'a kei
> fa su'o le ninmu kei fa ro le nanmu
> = koi'a cinba koi'e zo'au su'o le ninmu ro le nanmu
>
> cinba su'o le ninmu fa ro le nanmu
> = zau'o ke'a goi ko'a zo'u zau'o ke'a cinba ko'a kei
> fa ro le nanmu kei fa su'o le ninmu
> = koi'e cinba koi'a zo'au ro le nanmu su'o le ninmu
>
> Maybe
It's a good scheme, but I wonder whether it would raise too many
howls of protest! That is, whether the many howls of protest
would be endurable...
I don't think the intermediate stage with zau'o ke'a goi is
strictly necessary, is it? koi'V could just be defined as
cataphoric logophors (i.e. essentially copying the entire
sumti that depends on it), with ordinary left-to-right quantifier
scope, with nested anaphoric dependencies with elements (in
the same bridi?) following the zo'au.
Ah, but hang on. We want to be able to have things like
{koi'a djuno tu'o du'u koi'e broda} with koi'e having
scope over koi'a. How would we do that?
koi'e zo'u koi'a djuno tu'o du'u koi'e broda (kei?) zo'au
su'o le ninmu fa ro le nanmu
Each man is such that some woman knows he is broda.
-- Yes, that comports with the rest of the grammar in a relatively
defensible way, though I can already feel the wrath that it
would incite from those already convinced that us on jboske
are devil-worshippers or atheistical evolutionists, or what
have you.
--And.