From jorge@xxxxxxxxxx.xxx.xxx Wed Mar 31 19:08:20 1999
X-Digest-Num: 102
Message-ID: <44114.102.563.959273824@eGroups.com>
Date: Thu, 1 Apr 1999 00:08:20 -0300
From: "=?iso-8859-1?Q?Jorge_J._Llamb=EDas?=" <jorge@xxxxxxxxxx.xxx.xxx
Subject: Re: Tagged termsets and errata



Clark says:

>According to le cukta, "It is grammatical for a
>termset to be placed after a tense or modal tag rather than a sumti,
>...."
>
>Unfortunately, the grammar(s) in the very same book say otherwise. In a
>term, a tag (or FA) can precede either a simple sumti or a KU. A term
>can also be an unadorned termset. It can't be a tagged termset.

I think I never used termsets, and I hadn't realized this, but looking at
the formal grammar it seems you're right!

>Since le cukta is self-contradictory, this qualifies as an erratum.
>Several interesting questions suggest themselves:
>
>1. Which way should the conflict be resolved? I remember some of the
>discussions pointing out the need for a facility like this, and I
>acknowledge the lack without it. On the other hand ... well, it's rather
>unfortunate to have to modify the grammar after the baseline.

I believe the formal grammar takes precedence over the explanatory
text. In any case, the example could be changed to {nu'i zu'a la djordj
la'u lo mitre be li mu nu'u}, which is grammatical.

I still prefer the no-termset method: {zu'a la djordj va lo mitre be li mu}.


co'o mi'e xorxes