In a message dated 10/2/2001 9:56:01 AM Central Daylight Time, arosta@uclan.ac.uk writes:
>>> <pycyn@aol.com> 10/01/01 08:51pm >>> Well, no one seems to have any problem with {le du'u ce'u broda} in nonsubordinate bridi to mean "the property of being broda", the "is-a-broda" function. How is {le mamta be ce'u} different? No abstractor? Of course not, it is not a function to abstractions. The {ce'u} is hooked on with {be}? A grammatical accident for which we could no doubt find an xperimental solution if there were a real need, but the same relationship for all that. What? <#> * Le-sumti always have maximally wide scope over everything else # #This is not a generally accepted principle and is demonstably false inmany #cases: #da broda le brode, mi senva le melba, etc. I've addressed this in another message. But I think it's true to say that it was a generally accepted principle before you expressed dissent. (Asusual, these generalizations pertain only to people who have views.)> You have addressed it but not succeeded in making it true or even plausible agains obvious counterexamples. You may mean something special by this claim, but in its plain sense it is just false: raising {le melba} from {mi senva le nu le melba cu cinba mi} allows an illegitimate quantification, fronting {le brode} in {da broda le brode} changes the meaning. How does you theory deal with these? Say they are not real cases? But what would a real look like then? I admit that I can't find your earlier reply on this, but it apparently did not seem to me to meet the issues the example raise. <#> <* Sumti phrase X within sumti phrase Y is at the same bridi level as #> sumti Y, #> and can be paraphrased, without changing meaning, in such a way that X is #> not within Y.> # #Both halves of this are suspect {la djan djuno le du'u la bil klama} it does #not appear that {la bil} is on the same bridi level as {le du'u la bilklama} #within which it lies la bil is not at the same bridi level as la djan because la bil is within a bridi that does not contain la djan. As is usual, the above principle contains an implicit "Other things being equal....", and the example you give, where a sumti X contains a bridi which contains sumti Y, is an case where other things are not equal.> Since the weasel was crucial to the cases under discussion, it probablyshould have been mentioned, but let that ride. In { ko'a ko'e frica le mata be ce'u} {ce'u} is in a bridi contained in {le mamta be ce'u} which contains {ce'u}. So, {ce'u} is not at the same level as {le mamta be ce'u}. Thanks for your support, even against yourself. What's that? {le mamta be ce'u} does not contain a bridi? But it must,since it is a descriptor followed by a selbri and a selbri is only possible where there is a bridi, they are correlative terms. To be sure, thebridi is, for grammatical reasons, laid out differently, but no less therefor all of that -- and the rewriting mentioned earlier would bring it completely into view, without changing meaning, you say. |