In a message dated 3/12/2002 12:18:36 PM Central Standard Time, jjllambias@hotmail.com writes:The {lo su'o broda} forms in my system are just convenient Now that is mucky. But it saves you yet another rule although at extreme cost. <The "exchange {Q da poi broda} and {Q broda}" bit is the ugly step for me. When {broda} is a complex bridi, this may mean adding lots of be-bei's and possibly having to do internal rearrangments if {ke'a} is not the first sumti. It sounds like a simple rule, but in practice it is not. It removes the freedom to use the {poi} form as a stylistic variant, which is all it is in my version.> The predicate sumti - description sumti interchange is pretty automatic; shifting order would be a bit more complicated, but still falls under a straightforward rule. It may call for some further work. Or, if it gets to awful, we can leave the negation form unreduced, as you do in two cases. <>I think that extra effort is worth it to be able to tell >at a glance that a setence has existential import. I'm not sure it buys you even that. Just hide a negation a bit and at least for me it is not something you can tell at a glance: no broda me'iro da poi brode cu brodi Does that have existential import for brode? Can you really tell at a glance?> You have constructed a case where I have to stop and think a bit. But in your system, I always have to stop and think -- in fact recall the whole table to figure where this form fits in. To be sure, the prefixes forms would help, but are unwieldy (to be polite). |