WikiDiscuss

WikiDiscuss


Wiki page BPFK Section: Subordinators changed

posts: 1912


> On Mon, Aug 23, 2004 at 06:53:24PM -0700, Jorge Llamb?as wrote:
> >
> > > || noi | PA broda noi brode cu brodi | PA broda goi ko'a cu
> > > brode .i je ko'a cu brodi
> >
> > You have brode and brodi interchanged. The order matters, because
> > the brodi sentence is used to define the referents of ko'a and the
> > brode sentence is the one claimed of those referents, not the
> > other way around.
>
> I don't see how it is *possible* for order to matter around an
> {i je}, aside from scoping issues. It's a symmetrical relationship;
> both haves are equally binding.

It would be symmetrical if {ko'a} repeated words. But {ko'a} does not
repeat words, it repeats referents, and when you have ko'a assigned
to a quantified sumti, you need the whole sentence to determine its
referents. {PA broda goi ko'a} is not enough to determine the referents
of ko'a. {PA broda goi ko'a cu brode} tells you that the referents of
ko'a are the PA broda that brode, not any PA broda.

Let's do an example:

ci prenu noi melbi cu klama
Exactly three people, who are beautiful, came.

Now let's compare the two expansions:

ci prenu goi ko'a cu klama i ko'a melbi
Exactly three people (from now on ko'a) came.
They (= the three people that came) are beautiful.

That works. The expansion the way you have it:

ci prenu goi ko'a cu melbi i ko'a klama
Exactly three people (from now on ko'a) are beautiful.
They (= the three people that are beautiful) came.

That's not what the original says.


> > > poi + ro | ro broda poi brode cu brodi | ro da broda .i je da ga
> > > nai brode gi brodi
> >
> > This one is wrong. The expression on the right claims that
> > everything is a broda, which the one on the left clearly does not.
>
> Whoops. Would swapping the sentences fix that?

Nope.

> > > poi + PA (but not ro or no) | PA broda poi brode cu brodi | PA
> > > da broda .i je da ge brode gi brodi
> >
> > The one on the right claims that there are PA things that broda,
> > the one on the right does not.
>
> Which of those "rights" was supposed to be a left?

The second one.

> > {PA broda poi} could be defined accurately as:
> >
> > PA broda poi brode | PA ckaji be lo ka ce'u broda gi'e brode
> >
> > More generally, for any sumti:
> >
> > [PA] sumti poi broda | [PA] lo ckaji be lo ka ce'u me
> > sumti gi'e broda
>
> Can that trick be made to work for ro? Seems like it cood.

It works for any PA, including ro and no, as far as I can tell.

> > > zi'e | [sumti] [relative] zi'e [relative] [rest] | ko'a goi [[sumti]]
> > > [relative] [rest] .i je ko'a [relative] [rest]
> >
> > This one is wrong, just try some example:
> >
> > da poi broda zi'e poi brode cu brodi
> >
> > =/= da poi broda cu brodi ije da poi brode cu brodi
>
> Why? {i je} is symmetrical; both halves must be equally binding on
> {da}, else what's the point?

OK, maybe you're right. These are very non-standard ways of
doing things from the point of view of logical notation.

mu'o mi'e xorxes




__
Do you Yahoo!?
New and Improved Yahoo! Mail - Send 10MB messages!
http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail