[YG Conlang Archives] > [jboske group] > messages [Date Index] [Thread Index] >
la djorden cusku di'e
> > 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).
> [...]
No doubt about it, that's what the grammar says. But the official
doctrine is that this does not determine semantic structure.
> 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.
Change {mi} to {lo prenu}:
lo prenu na klama gi'e citka
This does _not_ expand to:
ge lo prenu na klama gi lo prenu cu citka
it expands to:
lo prenu ge na klama gi citka
and if you want:
lo prenu ge naku klama gi citka
but in any case {na} does not have scope over {lo prenu}, and that
is a problem for the official interpretation, that wants the {na}
in {lo prenu na klama gi citka} to behave like in {lo prenu na klama},
and in the latter to have scope over {lo prenu}.
mu'o mi'e xorxes
__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
The New Yahoo! Search - Faster. Easier. Bingo.
http://search.yahoo.com