[YG Conlang Archives] > [jboske group] > messages [Date Index] [Thread Index] >
John:
> 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
je'e
> > 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
{le broda} = {ro da poi cmima le'i broda}
So in {le broda ri}, is {ri}'s antecedent {da} or {ro da poi cmima
le'i broda} (with the identity of le'i broda unchanged)?
> > 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
xorxes agrees. Jordan doesn't. I have no opinion either way, except
that the question must be settled and documented.
--And.