[YG Conlang Archives] > [jboske group] > messages [Date Index] [Thread Index] >
On Wed, Dec 18, 2002 at 03:14:52PM -0000, And Rosta wrote:
> John:
> > And Rosta scripsit:
> > > 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)?
First off, the antecedent of "ri" can never be "da", because "da"
is in selma'o KOhA.
In "le broda ri", ri refers to the referent(s) of "le broda". "ro
da poi cmima le'i broda" has nothing to do with anything for this
purpose, and in "ro da poi cmima le'i broda ku'o ri" the ri would
refer to "le'i broda".
> > > 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.
The book says that the convetion for choosing the referent is by
the most recent sumti. It doesn't say "a recent sumti"
Similarly, I obey the rule that ke'a (and ce'u for that matter) are
in the first empty place, even though the rule is given in a way
which unfortunately makes it debatable.
--
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:
binA1HEYP3gKN.bin
Description: application/ygp-stripped