[YG Conlang Archives] > [jboske group] > messages [Date Index] [Thread Index] >
la and cusku di'e
> 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.
For naku we're in agreement. The initial naku is a common
term to brode and broda. The final naku after vau also is common to
both. A naku after broda but before vau would only apply to broda.
But in {na brode gi'e broda}, the {na} is absorbed as a tag
to brode, tighter than the connection to broda. This is not
unreasonable if we want gi'e to be symmetric: we can negate
broda only, so we should also be able to negate brode only.
> 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.
I'm not sure one rule is clearly simpler than the other, but
in any case, the parser should match the interpretation.
It is not at all obvious how an afterthought connective interacts
with the left-to-right scope rule, because it necessarily has scope
over something to its left. Where the start of the first connectand
is has to be specified one way or another, and with the current parser
both connectands are bridi-tails, which come with selbri tags and NAs.
mu'o mi'e xorxes
__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
The New Yahoo! Search - Faster. Easier. Bingo.
http://search.yahoo.com