[YG Conlang Archives] > [jboske group] > messages [Date Index] [Thread Index] >
xorxes:
> la and cusku di'e
>
> > > I1. {LAhE lo'i broda} = {LAhE ro lo broda}
> > >
> > > I2. {LAhE lo'i broda} = {LAhE le selcmi be ro broda}
> >
> >The right one is whichever allows for gadri to be paraphrased as
> >LAhE+lo'i/le'i/la'i. I'm not sure which that is
>
> Do you want {lu'i lo'i broda} = {lo'i broda}?
I don't really care, so far. I hadn't seen a need for lu'i until
you pointed out that "lu'i su'o broda" can replace "lau'i broda".
> Do you want the arguments of LAhE to always be sets, or do you
> want it to be irrelevant what gadri is inside other than
> the o/e/a distinction?
In one sense, there would be no other gadri but lo'i/le'i/la'i,
except as abbreviations.
But that doesn't really answer your question. I suppose my
current answer is that whatever the answer, it needs to be
consistent with reducing non-set gadri to LAhE+set gadri.
> In other words, I understand you want for example
> {loi broda} = {lu'o lo'i broda}, but what meaning do
> you give to {lu'o ro lo broda}, if any?
Tentatively, the same as {lu'o lo'i broda}, but I1 & I2
seem nondistinct. {lu'i lo'i broda} = {lo'i broda}, I would
say.
> > > Anyway, I don't see how A could be a problem if LAhEs
> > > work as in (I2)
> >
> >For example, if the anaphor refers to a set, the question
> >arises whether LAhE ought to apply to the referent of the
> >anaphor
>
> I think it should apply in the same way as with a regular
> set, but we seem to disagree as to how that is
Sorry, I don't understand. Explain again?
--And.