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


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

Re: [jboske] anaphora & glorking (was: RE: sane kau? (was: RE: Re: RE: Re: lo'edu'u



On Tue, Dec 17, 2002 at 02:03:14PM +0000, Jorge Llambias wrote:
> 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:

Ah; I was ignoring the "na".  It probably is gobbledygook then.  It
wouldn't be if it were "na'e" or something.

[...]
> 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?

The rules are broken on the issue, but you know what the
answer is---whatever makes sense when you convert it to forethought.

So your statement is
	ge su'o da poi gerku na blabi gi da xekri
The first da has nothing to do with the second one.

I don't know why the seperate prenex infront of the ".ije" was
removed from the grammar.  It used to be there, and there's even
examples in CLL which use it (chap 16).  In order for the 'external
bridi negation' rules to work properly it must exist also.

I think it should have a syntax with 2 prenexes at the front, and
one after the .ije (the two sides should've used the 'subsentence'
rule just like the forethought version).  So "<prenex> <prenex>
<bridi> ije <prenex> <bridi>", which would precisely mirror the
forethought structure "<prenex> ge <prenex> <bridi> gi <prenex>
<bridi>".

I don't know if fixing this is something the BF can do.  But it's
a contradiction in CLL, so it should be at least considered.

-- 
Jordan DeLong - fracture@hidden.email
lu zo'o loi censa bakni cu terzba le zaltapla poi xagrai li'u
                                     sei la mark. tuen. cusku

Attachment: binyQi846ZCHA.bin
Description: application/ygp-stripped