Re: [jboske] anaphora & glorking (was: RE: sane kau? (was: RE: Re: RE: Re: lo'edu'u

["Jorge Llambias" <jjllambias@hotmail.com>]

la djorden cusku di'e

> > How about in "ge na broda lo brode gi ri brodo"? Would that be treated
> > as gobbledygook?
>
> No. The referent of the "lo broda" is referred to by the "ri" (so
> it's the *same* broda, and not the same as repeating "lo broda").

There is no "referent of 'lo broda'" there. What does it mean
to say:

It is not the case that some dog X is white.
X is black.

Does that say that every dog is black? That some dogs are black?

There are lots of problems like this with underspecified scopes.
Supposedly, {na} has scope over one bridi.
Supposedly {ije} causes two bridi to be under the scope of the
same prenex.

Those two rules cause unresolvable paradoxes like:

su'o da poi gerku na blabi ije da xreki

which is unresolvable by those rules. The first requires
{na} to have scope over {su'o} and the second rule requires
{su'o} to have scope over both bridi. That would mean that
{na} has scope over both bridi?

mu'o mi'e xorxes


_________________________________________________________________
STOP MORE SPAM with the new MSN 8 and get 2 months FREE* 
http://join.msn.com/?page=features/junkmail