From dpt@abel.MATH.HARVARD.EDU Sat Mar 6 22:45:20 2010 Date: Wed, 24 May 1995 11:39:01 -0400 From: "Dylan P. Thurston" To: Logical Language Group Subject: quantifiers on sumti - late response X-From-Space-Date: Wed May 24 11:39:01 1995 X-From-Space-Address: dpt@abel.MATH.HARVARD.EDU Message-ID: la lojbab cusku di'e > ... (lots of stuff, including) ... > The relevant grammar portion is thus: > > < ... > < /* inner-quantified sumti relative clause */ > < | relative_clauses_121 sumti_tail_A_112 > < ... Wow, the YACC grammar has comments! I should take to reading that instead of the BNF. ... (lots more, including the "three men in the room stuff". I get so embarrassed every time someone else points out my really stupid grammar mistakes.) ... > The specific historical reason is the "SE SORME" = ze mensi issue that I > described the other day. JCB thought it loose and illogical to allow > the construction at all, I agree, but since > ...it kept creeping back into actual usage > (i.e. the little Loglanders in his head always used it %^), I'll bow to the forces of usage. (Was he the only one using the language at the time?) > ... > There are some limits to what you can put before the bare selbri in a > simple description. We have expanded this to allow for preposed > relative clauses after the Finnish model, and this took considerable > work and debate. A recent proposal to allow preposed "be/bei" > constructs was embedded in last week's discussion - it might work, and > might be useful, to people with a preposed grammar native structure. > Veijo??? But no guarantees we could make it grammatical, and it is not > importnat enough to justify a change if it causes anything more than a > trivial expansion rule (if even then). Just to support this: since I thought (incorrectly) that, e.g., le mi do se cusku used this preposed grammar, I guess I find it natural too. (This would be written le be mi bei do se cusku with the current proposal.) > ... ... > lojbab mu'o mi'e. dilyn.