[YG Conlang Archives] > [jboske group] > messages [Date Index] [Thread Index] >
On Wed, Dec 18, 2002 at 06:46:59PM -0000, And Rosta wrote:
> Jordan:
> > 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"
>
> "refers to the referent(s)" is too vague. "le broda" is shorthand
> for "ro da poi cmima le'i broda". So if "ri" refers to the referents
> of "le broda" then presumably "ri" logically translates into
> "da" or "ro da poi cmema X (= the aforementioned le'i broda)". But
> I don't know which of the two is the correct logical translation.
It refers to ro of the members of le'i broda individually. But it
has nothing to do with "ro da poi cmima le'i broda".
--
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:
binygyupPW1V_.bin
Description: application/ygp-stripped