On Thu, Aug 07, 2014 at 09:07:18AM -0700, TR NS wrote: > That's my point about the ambiguity. Either it fills x1 or or it fills the > next available sumiti. There needs to be no "presumption" or "if it is > clear to the listener". I may have interpreted that sentence differently > than you too. To me it read that one could presume it was in *any* slot > other x1 if it made contextual sense to the listener. e.g. if x3 was "clear > to the listener" they'd could choose that one too. As opposed to the > interpretation that it meant the "next available slot". Eliminating that > ambiguity was my point of bringing this up. Well, the CLL only states it has to be unambiguous in context. I gave you a syntactically unambiguous version of that interpretation which describes current usage pretty good. > Personally I think it makes more sense for it just to always be x1 b/c it > is easy enough to add `se` or `te` as needed, and I think if fits the > intent of NOI better. I consider that malglico. It makes much less sense to assume the relative pronoun overwrites a place already taken by a sumti than having it fill a vacant slot. > Consider I want to say "Tom who was a traveler to Baltimore." la .tom. noi litru la .boltimor. mu'o
Attachment:
pgptDFlAN1Z_c.pgp
Description: PGP signature