WikiDiscuss

---

> > When the sumti is a quantified expression (which does not strictly
> > have referents) the issue is a bit more complex.
>
> Too esoteric.

We can ignore the issue, but then we are not defining the language.

> > > noi immediately follows a simple sumti; for descriptions smuti
> > > it can appear in a variety of places, the semantics of which are
> > > beyond the scope of this definition.
> >
> > It shouldn't be beyond the scope, because any complication that
> > appears with descritpion sumti is already present with simple sumti,
> > which can also be quantified.
>
> The CLL seems to disagree with you on that point. Regardless, it's the
> effects on the location relative to LE sumti that are outside of scope,
> because the definition is already big enough.

On what point does the CLL seem to disagree?

I suspect I didn't make myself clear.

Simple sumti present two cases:

S1 {ko'a noi broda}
S2 {PA ko'a noi broda}

Description sumti present seven cases:

D1 {le brode noi broda}
D2 {le brode ku noi broda}
D3 {le noi broda ku'o brode}
D4 {PA le brode noi broda}
D5 {PA le brode ku noi broda}
D6 {PA le noi broda ku'o brode}
D7 {PA brode ku noi broda}

D1, D2, D3, D4 and D6 behave like S1
D5 and D7 behave like S2

The different points of application for the description cases
do not introduce any complication that is not already present
in the simple case.

> > When
> > attached to a sumti with an outer quantifier, the rules are a bit more
> > complex. Some quantifiers don't even provide referents for a noi
> > clause to apply to.
>
> Yep. I see no way to add that to the definition without turning it into
> a chapter.

I'll try to come up with a concise way of putting it.

> > I would say that in {ko'a noi ... zi'e poi ...} the noi clause applies
> > to all the referents of ko'a, whereas in {ko'a poi ... zi'e noi ...}
> > it applies to just those referents that are left after the poi
> > restriction.
>
> Left-to-right order, then? That kills my definitions for noi and poi,
> though. Kills them dead.

Why?

> > > || noi | PA broda noi brode cu brodi | PA broda goi ko'a cu brode .i
> > > je ko'a cu brodi
> >
> > Works often, but not a general formula.
>
> <sigh> It's your formula. I don't have anything better.

Yes, but when I offered it I did say it was not general.

> > > goi, unassigned | [sumti 1] goi [sumti 2] | [sumti 1] poi du
> > > [sumti 2]
> >
> > This is {po'u}, not {goi}. If sumti1 has no referent to begin with,
> > you can't restrict its referents to those of sumti2
>
> Suggestions?

The same description as for both assigned should work.

mu'o mi'e xorxes

__
Do you Yahoo!?
New and Improved Yahoo! Mail - 100MB free storage!
http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail