RE: [jboske] scope issues

["And Rosta" <a.rosta@lycos.co.uk>]

xorxes:
> la and cusku di'e
> 
> > > If this is correct, then comparing {lo cipni cu na vofli} with
> > > {lo cipni cu na vofli gi'e blabi} we see that the final {gi'e blabi}
> > > completely turns around the first part. Very weird...
> >
> >... which shows that it can't be correct. Something's gotta give.
> 
> Right, but what? {lo cipni cu na vofli gi'e blabi} hs three things
> with scope: {su'o}, {na} and {gi'e}. In what order should we
> take them?
> 
> I think it should be the same as: {su'o da poi cipni zo'u
> ge da na vofli gi da blabi}, i.e. su'o-gi'e-na order.

1. I advocate that scope be strictly hierarchical/linear, and screw
the official na-scope rule.

2. I frown upon afterthought connectives, but they're probably not
too harmful if we apply the rule that they take the narrowest
possible scope.

3. I therefore think it should be the same as {su'o da poi cipni zo'u
na ku ge da vofli gi da blabi}, i.e. su'o-na-gi'e order. The Woldian
order would be na-su'o-gi'e.

--And.