On Sun, Sep 29, 2002 at 04:37:50PM +0000, Jorge Llambias wrote:
> la djorden cusku di'e
[...]
> > > The rule I think is the Right Thing is that {e}/{ro} have
> > > scope over {pa} in that example.
> >
> >That is of course the whole discussion. My viewpoint is that the
> >paroi scopes over the pavdei, which scopes over the reldei, etc.
>
> You say of course, but you don't apply it. You are not taking
> into account that {e} has a scope of its own as well. When you
> split {paroi ko'a e ko'e} into {paroi ko'a ije paroi ko'e}, you're
> saying that {e} has scope over {paroi}. If {paroi} had scope over
> {e} you could not make the expansion. Expanding {e} is equivalent
> to exporting {ro} to the prenex.
Where's the book say that? And strictly speaking btw, since the
claims of pavdei and reldei aren't related (e instead of jo'u) the
scoping of quantifiers from the first one won't change the meaning.
I don't think it makes sense to talk about quantifier scope for
{e}, which has no quantifiers.
--
Jordan DeLong - fracture@allusion.net
lu zo'o loi censa bakni cu terzba le zaltapla poi xagrai li'u
sei la mark. tuen. cusku
Attachment:
pgp00141.pgp
Description: PGP signature