[YG Conlang Archives] > [jboske group] > messages [Date Index] [Thread Index] >
I am reasonably close to accepting that l(x).broda(x) needs its own official gadri, and I think And's terms of reference on how the decision would be framed are acceptable to me. Me privately, obviously, not me BPFKJ. I do want to hear from other fundies.
My sticking points: (a) I want to be sure that Mr Broda isn't already being covered by {loi broda} (although if it is, I'm cool with that, because I'd prefer not to think of lx.broda(x) in terms of Mr Broda anyway); (b) I need to be utterly convinced that {jaika} can never work.
One thing, though? Arguments on the outer quantification of {lo se ka} are bogus, surely. It is grammatical but nonsensical to say {re loi} or {re lo'e}. If we agree that pragmatically, the referent of {jai ka} or {se ka} is always singulated, just as masses and generics are, then why can't we just say that {re lo se ka broda} is also nonsense? After all, {re lo pa broda} is nonsense. And in singulation, we have an inner quantifier of 1, by definition. Why can't we just accord the same status to {re lo se ka broda} as to {re lo pa broda}?
(*)(*)(*) http://www.opoudjis.net DR NICK NICHOLAS; FRENCH & ITALIAN, UNIVERSITY OF MELBOURNE nickn@hidden.email"Some of the English might say that the Irish orthography is very Irish. Personally, I have a lot of respect for a people who can create something
so grotesque." -- Andrew Rosta