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


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

RE: [jboske] zo'au, vau



xorxes:
> la and cusku di'e
> 
> >Can sumti follow vau in a simple bridi (grammatically, even if
> >meaninglessly)? I'm trying to think of what selmaho is best for
> >zo'au 
> 
> No, they can't 

Is there anything better for it to be than a KOhA? KOhA is rather
inelegant.
 
> I'm not sure about the koi'V series though. I was thinking
> whether the "trailing prenex" (should that be called a
> "postnex"?) should really reverse the order of quantifiers
> or just have general precedence over the body but still in
> the usual order. That way we can think of it as an
> afterthought continuation of the prenex. So we could say:
> 
>       da broda de zo'au ro da su'o de
> 
> With the meaning of:
> 
>       ro da su'o de zo'u da broda de
> 
> or also:
> 
>       ro da zo'u da broda de zo'au su'o de
> 
> Both orders would be possible I suppose (eventually there
> could be a cmavo to specify which order we are using) but
> it would be simpler to see it as just a continuation of the
> prenex 

There's no real reason why it shouldn't be this way, though I
confess I find it counterintuitive, but ideally be keep syntactic 
structure and logical structure in tandem. In logical structure, 
scope is hierarchical not intrinsically linear, and so ideally 
this would be expressed though hierarchical syntactic structure 
rather than mere linear order. Linear order, where it affects 
scope, can be seen as a convention determining how to rewrite 
into a hierarchicalized structure. Sorry: this is getting opaque. 
Basically I want to say that in an ideal world, if X is within 
the scope of Y, then X is in a lower bridi than Y. 

I'm not sure if I'm being clear. Here's an example (Polish):

 Ex not Ay and Fxy Gxy

can be rewritten with the hierarchical structure made explicit
thus:

 [ Ex [ not [ Ay [ and [F [x] [y]] [G [x] [y]] ]]]]

If there was a way to encode this structure other than using linear 
order, then the order could change without altering the formula,
e.g.

 [ [ not [ [ [F [x] [y]] [G [x] [y]] and ] Ay ]] Ex]

The closer the eventual solution is to this ideal, the fewer logical
problems could ensue.

--And.