[YG Conlang Archives] > [jboske group] > messages [Date Index] [Thread Index] >
xorxes:
> la and cusku di'e
> > xorxes:
> > > lo broda be ro brode
> > > is
> > > su'o da poi ro de zo'u da broda de
> > > right?
> > > In other words, a quantifier in a be-complement does not
> > > export to the prenex of the main bridi, but only to the
> > > prenex of the subordinated clause. I think this is obvious,
> > > but I just want to make sure everyone agrees.
> >
> > ye-es, but the subordinate clause is a syntactic artefact.
> > {lo broda cu brode} can rewrite as {da ge broda gi broda}.
> > Hence {lo broda be ro brode cu brodo} should rewrite as
> > {da ge broda be ro brode gi brodo} (with ro within scope of
> > ge).
>
> Right, I asked the wrong question.
>
> I think what I was after was {tu'o broda be su'o brode}.
> In that case, the quantifier does remain behind an opaque
> barrier, doesn't it?
If you'd asked me the question without bias, I'd have answered
the opposite -- that tu'o is transparent.
> I'm trying to figure out whether {tu'o datni be lo broda}
> is a good rendering of {tu'a lo broda}, which is usually
> understood to be {tu'o du'u lo broda cu co'e}.
{tu'o datni} doesn't feel right. {lei datni} might be better,
I think.
--And.