[YG Conlang Archives] > [jboske group] > messages [Date Index] [Thread Index] >
And Rosta scripsit:
> I'm not sure whether ri involves glorking. What is the antecedent
> of ri in {le mamta be la djan ri}, and in {le mi mamta ri}? And is
la djan in the first case, le mi mamta in the second.
ri is coreferential with the most recently begun sumti that is complete,
regardless of nesting.
> the antecedent of {le broda} = {ro da poi cmima le'i broda} {da}
> or is it {ro da poi cmima le'i broda}? I don't know.
I don't grok this one.
> As far as I know, lerfu sumti require glorking. Hang on while I
> check CLL.... Not clear from the book how recentness is ranked
> when sumti are within sumti, nor is it clear whether the antecedent
> is always the recentest sumti containing a name or description or
> whether it can be lerfu sumti ("le nanmu ... ny ... le ninmu ...
> ny"), nor is it clear whether the lerfu sumti repeats the
> quantification of the antecedent... and so forth.
Lerfu sumti trade off glork-free-ness for convenience.
--
All Norstrilians knew what laughter was: John Cowan
it was "pleasurable corrigible malfunction". http://www.reutershealth.com
--Cordwainer Smith, _Norstrilia_ jcowan@hidden.email