[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

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


la and cusku di'e

> I1. {LAhE lo'i broda} = {LAhE ro lo broda}
>
> I2. {LAhE lo'i broda} = {LAhE le selcmi be ro broda}

The right one is whichever allows for gadri to be paraphrased as
LAhE+lo'i/le'i/la'i. I'm not sure which that is.

Do you want {lu'i lo'i broda} = {lo'i broda}?

Do you want the arguments of LAhE to always be sets, or do you
want it to be irrelevant what gadri is inside other than
the o/e/a distinction?

In other words, I understand you want for example
{loi broda} = {lu'o lo'i broda}, but what meaning do
you give to {lu'o ro lo broda}, if any?

> Anyway, I don't see how A could be a problem if LAhEs
> work as in (I2)

For example, if the anaphor refers to a set, the question
arises whether LAhE ought to apply to the referent of the
anaphor.


I think it should apply in the same way as with a regular
set, but we seem to disagree as to how that is.

mu'o mi'e xorxes


_________________________________________________________________
MSN 8 with e-mail virus protection service: 3 months FREE*. http://join.msn.com/?page=features/virus&xAPID=42&PS=47575&PI=7324&DI=7474&SU= http://www.hotmail.msn.com/cgi-bin/getmsg&HL=1216hotmailtaglines_eliminateviruses_3mf