[YG Conlang Archives] > [jboske group] > messages [Date Index] [Thread Index] >
la and cusku di'e
In other words, your argument is:
1. Inner quantifiers are incompatible with Substance. (True.)
2. {lei/loi PA} is grammatical and presumably meaningful.
3. Therefore, {lei/loi} mustn't be Substance.
4. This leaves the way open for {lei/loi} to just do Collective,
as per standard piano-carrying examples.
That argument seems pretty unassailable to me, and I will join
you in it.
I would change 2. to "{lei/loi PA} (especially {lei PA} in fact)
is grammatical and used often, including in paradigmatic
examples like {lei ci nanmu cu bevri le pipno}". If it were
just that it was grammaticl but never used, then it might
eventually be Substance, but in fact it is used.
mu'o mi'e xorxes
_________________________________________________________________
The new MSN 8: smart spam protection and 3 months FREE*.
http://join.msn.com/?page=features/junkmail&xAPID=42&PS=47575&PI=7324&DI=7474&SU=
http://www.hotmail.msn.com/cgi-bin/getmsg&HL=1216hotmailtaglines_smartspamprotection_3mf