In a message dated 2/15/2002 12:55:03 AM Central Standard Time, thanatos@dim.com writes:
If it is true that I am across the river from the school type-of going,
then it also true something exists across the river from the school,
otherwise I couldn't be related even ambiguously to it by across the
river from the school type-of going.
That's what I mean by a simple tanru claiming that the seltau and tertau
are true for some respective arguments. If the bridi containing the
tanru is true, then the tertau holds true for some arguments (given in
the bridi) and the seltau holds true for some arguments (left
unspecified unless made explicit). If {mi broda klama} is true, then
there must exist something that is broda for me to stand in an ambiguous
broda klama relation to.
Nice.
I'm not sure it is unqualifiedly true and I would hate to have to actually do the filling in in some cases. On the other hand, it does suggest another way of disambiguating when need be.
As for cases that are arguable, something as simple as {cmalu xanto} notoriously presents problems -- not irreconcilable ones, but at least it is hard to separate the {cmalu} completely from the {xanto} in the usual adj-n reading.
|