[YG Conlang Archives] > [jboske group] > messages [Date Index] [Thread Index] >
Jordan:
#>>> fracture@hidden.email 06/02/03 03:54pm >>>
#On Mon, Jun 02, 2003 at 03:15:02AM -0400, Robert LeChevalier wrote:
#> At 07:02 PM 6/1/03 -0400, John Cowan wrote:
#> >Invent Yourself scripsit:
#> > > of "lo broda = da poi broda".
#> >
#> >I believe it.
#>
#> Whereas I rejected that equation in 1994, and still do. I just decided
#> that it wasn't worth further argument.
#
#Well, it's baselined now, so it doesn't matter whether you reject it.
#
#And for that matter, why the hell would you possibly reject it?
The horrendous jboske debates of the end of 2002 saw some reasons,
adduced by me, for questioning it.
In brief, the argument was as follows:
IF
(a) {loi djacu} != {lo djacu}
(b) {da djacu} neutralizes the distinction between {da du lo djacu} and
{da du loi djacu}
THEN
{da poi ke'a djacu} can refer to the same thing as {da poi ke'a du loi
djacu}, and hence to {loi djacu}.
In other words, {da poi broda} would be neutral between {lo broda}
and {loi broda}.
HOWEVER, we do not all agree on premise (b). Arguably {lo}={da poi}
is more 'baselined' than (b), and it is (b) that has to be abandoned.
--And.