[YG Conlang Archives] > [jboske group] > messages [Date Index] [Thread Index] >
On Wed, Apr 30, 2003 at 08:08:22PM -0700, Jorge Llambmas wrote:
> 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.
Well who decided that the semantic structure gets to be nuts?
Is there something in CLL about this? I don't remember anything...
> > 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}.
I don't think it can behave like the na in {lo prenu na klama}
without having some Weird Ass effects. What is {lo prenu na klama
gi'e citka} supposed to mean in that case? To me it means "There
is a person who doesn't go but does eat".
Anyway that's fine; we can just say naku-to-prenex doesn't work
(unless we add those Nixon Prenexes) if you have a connected
bridi-tail thingy.
--
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:
bin9hxg79mBmT.bin
Description: application/ygp-stripped