On Mon, Jul 21, 2003 at 04:09:03PM +0200, Adam Raizen wrote:
> de'i li 2003-07-19 ti'u li 16:43:00 la'o zoi. Craig .zoi cusku di'e
>
> >>Unbound malglico. Either use my. or le go'i or ra or bind the ko'a.
> >>my. and ra even cost less syllables, so I don't see what argument
> >>there is for the unbound ko'a.
> >
> >The argument is, pe'i, that it is grammatical so it ought to be meaningful.
> >To those of you who argue for unbound ko'a, if that is your reason, I have a
> >question for you. i pei xu cu'e xo ma mo? If not, then what is your reason?
>
> That's not the argument. The argument is that it is grammatical, it has
> an obvious meaning, and it is useful. Not every sumti place has to be
But I reject that it is useful, since you can get the same use with
less syllables using existing anaphora.
> completely unambiguous; in fact, every use of 'le' is potentially ambiguous
> in much the same way that unbound ko'a is (note that And uses 'le du'
> instead of unbound ko'a). If we wanted to get rid of every ambiguous
> sumti, we should start with ra/ru and zo'e, even implicitly (i.e.,
> no ellipsis).
--
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:
pgp00508.pgp
Description: PGP signature