Robin's gadri Proposal
Someplace someone is going to have to give an explicit exposition of the logic of {zo'e}. It seems to be being used — here and earlier — in something like three different and to me incompatible ways: is it an open variable (one without a quantifier) or is it a pronoun for indifferent terms or is it a pronoun for obvious terms or is it yet something else again. Much of the apparent value of several arguments here seem to hinge on playing two or more sides of this ambiguity in different places. A clear statement about {zo'e} — as it is being used here, since CLL is pretty clearly ambiguous — would be most helpful.
Jorge Llambías <jjllambias2000@yahoo.com.ar> wrote:--- Robin Lee Powell wrote:
> On Mon, Jul 26, 2004 at 02:04:47PM -0700, Jorge Llamb?as wrote:
> > --- Robin Lee Powell wrote:
> > > How does "mi ja'a pu klama su'o zo'e" not imply "mi ja'a pu klama
> > > zo'e", exactly?
> >
> > The second sentence leaves more to context. By making {su'o} explicit,
> > you prevent a more precise claim from being derived from context.
>
> I'm not disagreeing, I'm just not sure I understand. Can you give a
> value for the second sentence that can't be encompassed by the first?
The obvious value from the example I gave is {le zarci}.
{mi ja'a klama le zarci} is not the same answer as
{mi ja'a klama su'o le zarci} to the question
{xu do klama le zarci}.
mu'o mi'e xorxes
__
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Mail is new and improved - Check it out!
http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail