[YG Conlang Archives] > [jboske group] > messages [Date Index] [Thread Index] >
la djorden cusku di'e
> How about in "ge na broda lo brode gi ri brodo"? Would that be treated > as gobbledygook? No. The referent of the "lo broda" is referred to by the "ri" (so it's the *same* broda, and not the same as repeating "lo broda").
There is no "referent of 'lo broda'" there. What does it mean
to say:
It is not the case that some dog X is white.
X is black.
Does that say that every dog is black? That some dogs are black?
There are lots of problems like this with underspecified scopes.
Supposedly, {na} has scope over one bridi.
Supposedly {ije} causes two bridi to be under the scope of the
same prenex.
Those two rules cause unresolvable paradoxes like:
su'o da poi gerku na blabi ije da xreki
which is unresolvable by those rules. The first requires
{na} to have scope over {su'o} and the second rule requires
{su'o} to have scope over both bridi. That would mean that
{na} has scope over both bridi?
mu'o mi'e xorxes
_________________________________________________________________
STOP MORE SPAM with the new MSN 8 and get 2 months FREE*
http://join.msn.com/?page=features/junkmail