[YG Conlang Archives] > [jboske group] > messages [Date Index] [Thread Index] >
xorxes:
> la djorden cusku di'e
>
> > Huh?!
> >
> > mi na broda gi'e broda meaning na (broda gi'e broda) would be nuts
> >
> > The na is part of the selbri
>
> I agree with you, but that's the official interpretation
> They wanted {na} to be exportable to the prenex
We discussed this before, and I forget how the discussion went.
At any rate, absent any recollection of what was said in that
discussion, I follow the official interpretation on the grounds
that scope is supposed to left to right.
Hence "na (ku) brode gi'e broda" has na with scope over gi'e,
but "brode gi'e broda vau na ku" has gi'e with scope over na.
That is what I get from following the principle of linear
scope.
I do of course think the parse should match the interpretation,
but if the horrendously complicated parses of the current
grammar were to determine interpretation, then the language
would become unusable except by the likes of Jordan (i.e. Jordan
& probably nobody else). Better to keep the current simple
rules of interpretation and fix the parse so that it reflects
the linear scope rule. But that's way beyond the scope of the
BF.
--And.