Re: [jboske] coi xirma, doi xirma

[John Cowan <cowan@ccil.org>]

And Rosta scripsit:

> > Where do you see this? 6.11 seems to me to say that doi xirma means
> > doi le xirma only 
> 
> Page 183 -- sec 9 of the relative clause chapter, first para.

Ah. I agree that pages 183 and 136 are in apparent conflict, and 183
was ill-conceived. Note the presence of the hedge "In a sense" on 183,
whereas 136 makes the clear statement that the gadri omitted in
COI+selbri is "le".

I suppose in 183 I was thinking that Horse might be justly described
as le xirma; I wouldn't say that today.

> OK. Using a +definite gloss, then we have "I hereby address/greet it the 
> horse". 

I assume the "it" is spurious. Yes, except that you might want horror quotes
around "horse".

> The key point is that {doi le} first establishes the referent of {le}
> and then says that it is being greeted/addressed. 

Just so. 

-- 
And through this revolting graveyard of the universe the muffled, maddening
beating of drums, and thin, monotonous whine of blasphemous flutes from
inconceivable, unlighted chambers beyond Time; the detestable pounding
and piping whereunto dance slowly, awkwardly, and absurdly the gigantic
tenebrous ultimate gods -- the blind, voiceless, mindless gargoyles whose soul
is Nyarlathotep. (Lovecraft) John Cowan|jcowan@reutershealth.com|ccil.org/~cowan