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

Re: [jboske] lau'i = lu'i su'o? (was: RE: anaphora & glorking


la and cusku di'e

> I think {ro lau'i ci nanmu} could be {ro lu'a lu'i ci lo nanmu}
> but then {ri} would not work because it would send to {ci lo nanmu}
> instead of to the whole thing. This might be an argument in favour
> of {lau'i}

I find the lu'a unnecessary, but I would have thought the proposed
rule would make "re ri" mean "re (lu'a) the-aforementioned
lu'i ci nanmu".


You are not counting {ci lo nanmu} as a possible antecedent
of {ri}? If it is, then it has priority over {lu'i ci lo nanmu}
because it starts later.

I don't agree {lu'a} is unnecessary because I would read
{ro lu'i} as "every set" rather than "every member of the set".

I don't currently see why "lau'i broda" isn't equivalent to "lu'i
su'o broda", and unless you can see a difference, I think I will
move "lau'i" to obsolete proposals and use "lu'i su'o" instead.


I misremembered what {lau'i} was. If it is a set then it
would be {lu'i su'o}, but then I would find it strange to
apply a quantifier directly to get at the members.

mu'o mi'e xorxes


_________________________________________________________________
The new MSN 8: smart spam protection and 3 months FREE*. http://join.msn.com/?page=features/junkmail&xAPID=42&PS=47575&PI=7324&DI=7474&SU= http://www.hotmail.msn.com/cgi-bin/getmsg&HL=1216hotmailtaglines_smartspamprotection_3mf