* Saturday, 2014-09-27 at 21:20 -0300 - Jorge Llambías <jjllambias@gmail.com>:
> > On Saturday, September 27, 2014 3:59:15 PM UTC-4, Martin Bays wrote:
> >> ro da poi verba cu prami lo mamta be da
> >>
> >> FA x1:(verba(_)). mamta(f0(x1),x1)
> >> FA x1:(verba(_)). prami(x1,f0(x1))
> >>
> >> ro da poi ke'a verba ku'o zo'u li ma'o fyno mo'e da lo'o mamta da
> >> .i ro da poi ke'a verba ku'o zo'u da prami li ma'o fyno mo'e da lo'o
> >>
> >
> Just as a matter of notation, couldn't you use "fyno pe da" instead of "li
> ma'o fyno mo'e da lo'o"?
> It seems much more clear, would anything be lost by doing that?
The problem is that I would interpret {fyno pe da} compositionally:
fyno is a sumbasti which refers to something, and then the {pe da} is
interpreted in the way we discussed in the other thread the other week
(ko'a poi broda == zo'e noi me ko'a gi'e broda), yielding:
> da du by pe da
FA x1. (srana(f0(x1),x1) /\ (b) >= (f0(x1)))
EX x1. =(x1,f0(x1))
ro da zo'u ge li ma'o fyno mo'e da lo'o srana da gi li ma'o fyno mo'e da lo'o me by me'u
.i su'o da zo'u da du li ma'o fyno mo'e da lo'o
To make it work the way you suggest, we'd have to have sumbasti also
allowed to have non-constant references, and break the compositionality
of restrictive clauses (which admittedly is already broken in some other
cases, e.g. {da poi broda}). Do you think it could be made to work and
would be a good idea?
Martin
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature