[YG Conlang Archives] > [jboske group] > messages [Date Index] [Thread Index] >
On Wed, Apr 30, 2003 at 09:46:42PM -0500, Jordan DeLong wrote:
> On Wed, Apr 30, 2003 at 08:20:24AM -0700, Jorge Llambmas wrote:
> > 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.
>
> Not the way I read the grammar.
>
> selbri-1;
> : selbri-2
> | NA # selbri
>
> And the gi'e is out in the bridi-tail rule which contains the selbri.
>
> So the na is deeper in the tree. (I.e. this is the mi ((na broda)
> gi'e (broda)) way---the non-nuts way).
[...]
Btw this doesn't kill prenex exporting of naku.
mi na klama gi'e citka is
ge mi na klama gi citka,
ge naku zo'u mi klama gi mi citka
The two clauses need to get seperate prenexes.
--
Jordan DeLong - fracture@hidden.email
lu zo'o loi censa bakni cu terzba le zaltapla poi xagrai li'u
sei la mark. tuen. cusku
Attachment:
binVVEZrztzPZ.bin
Description: application/ygp-stripped