[YG Conlang Archives] > [jboske group] > messages [Date Index] [Thread Index] >
la djorden cusku di'e
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.
Interesting. The mantra is that when the text of CLL conflicts with the formal grammar, the grammar takes precedence, so those examples in ch.16 would have to be marked as errata...
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>".
When one prenex is allowed, any number of them are allowed. I
agree that after {ije} and {ibo} they should be allowed.
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.
Yes. mu'o mi'e xorxes _________________________________________________________________The new MSN 8: smart spam protection and 2 months FREE* http://join.msn.com/?page=features/junkmail