[YG Conlang Archives] > [jboske group] > messages [Date Index] [Thread Index] >
I'm bringing this to jboske and switching to English on
Jordan's suggestion.
We're discussing whether or not {lo'e} has scope over the
quantifiers of following terms. My position is that it
doesn't, Jordan's position is that it does. So for example:
(1) lo'e gerku cu citka lo rectu
(2) lo rectu cu se citka lo'e gerku
to me both of them mean "there is some meat that is eaten by
dogs", while to Jordan (1) says that "dogs eat meat" and (2)
is more or less nonsensical. To say "dogs eat meat" I would
say "lo'e gerku cu citka lo'e rectu". I'm not sure how
Jordan proposes to say "there is some meat that is eaten by
dogs".
Jordan correct me if I have misstated your position.
.i romu'ei gi do za'o na tugni gi .e'o ko cusku fo la jboske xelmri gi'e .e'u se bangu la gliban.
vi'o mu'o mi'e xorxes _________________________________________________________________Help STOP SPAM with the new MSN 8 and get 2 months FREE* http://join.msn.com/?page=features/junkmail