[YG Conlang Archives] > [jboske group] > messages [Date Index] [Thread Index] >
xorxes:
> la and cusku di'e
>
> > > I think {ro lau'i ci nanmu} could be {ro lu'a lu'i ci lo nanmu}
> > > but then {ri} would not work because it would send to {ci lo nanmu}
> > > instead of to the whole thing. This might be an argument in favour
> > > of {lau'i}
> >
> >I find the lu'a unnecessary, but I would have thought the proposed
> >rule would make "re ri" mean "re (lu'a) the-aforementioned
> >lu'i ci nanmu"
>
> You are not counting {ci lo nanmu} as a possible antecedent
> of {ri}? If it is, then it has priority over {lu'i ci lo nanmu}
> because it starts later
Sorry: I had thought you were talking semantics. But you mean that
the semantic rule for ri would pick out ci lo nanmu. Yes, you're
right. Indeed, that would be a general argument not only for lau'i
but against factoring out gadri into a LAhE plus a set gadri.
Or would it be better to tweak the rule for identifying the syntactic
antecedent of ri? Maybe not; ri xi re would get "ro lu'a lu'i ci
lo nanmu".
> I don't agree {lu'a} is unnecessary because I would read
> {ro lu'i} as "every set" rather than "every member of the set"
I understand. The reason I disagree is that lu'a or an individuals
gadri must be preceded by a quantifier, while the other LAhE and
gadri mustn't be. Hence I see "individuals" as equivalent to
"quantified".
> >I don't currently see why "lau'i broda" isn't equivalent to "lu'i
> >su'o broda", and unless you can see a difference, I think I will
> >move "lau'i" to obsolete proposals and use "lu'i su'o" instead
>
> I misremembered what {lau'i} was. If it is a set then it
> would be {lu'i su'o}, but then I would find it strange to
> apply a quantifier directly to get at the members
"lau'o" or "lu'olau'i" gets you the collective. And so forth.
--And.