[YG Conlang Archives] > [jboske group] > messages [Date Index] [Thread Index] >
On Wed, Apr 30, 2003 at 07:11:45AM -0700, Jorge Llambías wrote:
>
> la djorden cusku di'e
>
> > > They seem analogous to me:
> > >
> > > simple-tense-modal = [NAhE] [SE] BAI [NAI] [KI]
> > > | [NAhE] (time [space]| space [time]) & CAhA [KI]
> > > | KI
> > > | CUhE
> > >
> > > PU is the nucleus of 'time' and FAhA of 'space'. So BAI, PU, FAhA,
> > > CAhA, KI, CUhE and others can all function as simple-tense-modal,
> > [...]
> >
> > Err, but if you look at that rule there, they aren't analagous.
>
> analogous
> adj 1: similar or correspondent in some respects though otherwise dissimilar
>
> They don't have to have identical grammar to be analogous. If they did,
> we wouldn't be having this discussion.
That definition is too broad, as you well know, otherwise "fa" and
"ma" are "analagous" simply because they're both cmavo and they
both end in the letter 'a'.
[...]
> > I think you mentioned {mi pu na'eka'e broda}. This doesn't make
> > sense either, since either the whole tense should be negated or
> > not.
>
> It makes perfect sense: impossible in the past. This is different
> from possible in the non-past.
I thought "na'e pu ka'e" is other than (possible in the past).
Doesn't the na'e scope over the whole tense unit?
> > That sentence could either mean {puku mi na'eka'e broda} or
> > {mi na'e pu ka'e broda}.
>
> I don't see how you can get the second meaning from it.
See above.
> > It could've been allowed if one of those
> > meanings were required, I suppose, but it's not obvious which it
> > should be, and so I don't see what allowing it gets you (I suppose
> > that you could argue that if it has the puku meaning it saves you
> > a syllable, though).
>
> No, it is not a matter of saving syllables. It is a question of not
> forbidding sensible strings just for the sake of forbidding them.
[...]
It's not a matter of forbidding strings.
The grammar specifies the list of allowed strings. If it's not
broad enough for you I think the burden of proof is on you to show
that it is worthwhile for it to be broader in a particular area.
One possible argument is that it would allow saying things with
less syllables. Another is that it would remove reduce/reduce or
shift/reduce conflicts and/or simplify the grammar.
But increasing the number of allowed strings simply for that purpose
alone is not a valid argument. (At least not to me).
--
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:
binia90D4M5kl.bin
Description: application/ygp-stripped