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

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

la and cusku di'e

> A further problem of sorts is that {da} is of course not a licit
> antecedent for an anaphor on the other side of a scope boundary,
> but {le'i} is a licit antecedent, and it would be good to have
> an anaphor that would take the le'i as its antecedent, even if
> {ri} is not the anaphor for this job. The sort of anaphor that
> would be helpful would be something like a {go'i} that picks up
> its antecedents by backcounting through sumti.

I think the solution should be something like this, the
same one for all/most pro-sumti:

1- If the pro-sumti is overtly quantified, then the new
quantification is restricted to the same set over which
the antecedent's quantification was restricted.

2- If the pro-sumti is not overtly quantified and is still
within the scope of its antecedent's quantifier, then it
is a variable bound by that quantifier.

3- If the pro-sumti is not overtly quantified and it is
outside the scope of its antecedent's quantifier, then
it is taken to have a default quantifier (ro?, su'o?)
that starts a new quantification over the same set over
which the antecedent was quantified.

mu'o mi'e xorxes


_________________________________________________________________
Tired of spam? Get advanced junk mail protection with MSN 8. 
http://join.msn.com/?page=features/junkmail