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


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

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



On Wed, Dec 18, 2002 at 01:40:26PM -0500, Robert LeChevalier wrote:
> At 04:02 PM 12/18/02 +0000, Jorge Llambias wrote:
> >la and cusku di'e
> > >Lojbab:
> > > > Long scope prenex before connected sentences requires forethought, and
> > > > hence tu'e/tu'u, which is probably an underutilized feature of the
> > >language
> > >
> > >Definitely. "+1". (This message sent because it's nice to point out
> > >occasions when we agree!)
> >
> >I agree too, but I'm not sure Lojbab realizes that he's
> >advocating a change in the baselined grammar. The current
> >grammar does not permit the second connected sentence to
> >have its own prenex.
> 
> Yes it does, but it needs to be inside tu'e/tu'u
> 
> prenex sentence ije tu'e prenex sentence tu'u

Why does it need to be inside tu'e?  This makes no sense to me.  I
don't understand your original comment in light of this last.

-- 
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: bin87AqJFscCG.bin
Description: application/ygp-stripped