On 28 Sep 2014 12:04, and.rosta@gmail.com wrote:
>
>
> On 28 Sep 2014 02:34, "Martin Bays" <mbays@sdf.org> wrote:
> > the compositionality
> > of restrictive clauses (which admittedly is already broken in some other
> > cases, e.g. {da poi broda}).
>
> I agree {da poi} looks broken. What are the remedies? (1) To allow noncompositional idioms? (2) To define /poi/ as an allomorph of /noi/ in this syntactic environment? (3) To accept that, given the internal logic of the language, {da poi} as habitually used is simply wrong? (4) To seek and find a consistent definition for {poi} and {noi} such that {da poi} usage becomes correct?
I realize I was too hasty. Modifying a constant, X poi/noi broda both mean "me X" & "broda", differing in the scopal position of "broda", local for poi and outermost (in the entire logical form) for noi. Modifying a variable, that cannot be the difference. I had been assuming that noi modifying a variable would have outermost scopal position within the domain in which the variable is bound. But I haven't studied the matter long enough to be sure that there is no other equally coherent definition for poi & noi.
At any rate, none of this is in CLL, so at best is part of the lore of what should go into a revised CLL.
--And.
--