On 27 Sep 2014 20:28, "Jorge Llambías" <jjllambias@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> On Sat, Sep 27, 2014 at 1:56 PM, And Rosta <and.rosta@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> I understand {le broda} to be short for {lo co'e voi ke'a broda}, which is probably equivalent to unbound {ko'a voi ke'a broda}, tho that depends on whether unbound {ko'a} is interpreted as definite (like third person pronouns). Do you disagree? If not, don't the {co'e} and, contingently, the {voi} give a meaning usefully and intelligibly distinct from {lo broda}?
>
> Is that just adding non-veridicality to "lo", or something else to do with specificity?
The specificity comes from the {co'e}.
> There is some dispute about what it means for a restrictive clause to attach to a sumti without an accompanying quantifier. Some say that "ti poi toldi" means something like "those among these that are butterflies",
That's how I'd interpret it.
whereas others say it means something like "these, which I'm helping you to identify by telling you that they are butterflies".
That looks like {ti noi toldi}.
I'm not sure if in "ko'a voi broda" you intend "ko'a" to have more referents than "le broda", from which the restrictive voi clause will select some, or whether it is meant to have the same referents of "le broda" with the restrictive voi clause being there to help identify what they are.
I had misremembered {voi}. I mean rather that {le broda} is {lo co'e voi'i ke'a broda}, where {voi'i} is nonveridical {noi} (I haven't found an existing experimental cmavo for that in jbovlaste, but I may have searched with insufficient diligence). {Voi} itself seems utterly useless: has it ever been used correctly and meaningfully?
The nonveridicality is a natural consequence of the identificatory function of the relative clause.
In other words, {le} is specificity (co'e) plus identificatory clause (voi'i).
--And.
--