* Sunday, 2014-09-28 at 22:00 -0300 - Jorge Llambías <jjllambias@gmail.com>:
I take it then that the parser doesn't touch
> li-expressions, or at least some of them?
It handles matching operands with operators and so on, but quickly
arrives at a fixed point.
> > Hmm. I've been adopting {lo broda} == {zo'e noi broda} as absolute
> > dogma, so it's really making a side-claim that the referent(s) broda(s).
> > You think a more accurate dogma would be
> > {lo broda} == {zo'e noi ca'e broda}?
>
> No, I was thinking of "ca'e" as defining the new auxiliary variables
> introduced by the parsing.
I wouldn't say it's a definition exactly. That it brodas need not be
enough to pick the referent out uniquely, so I don't see that we can
take it as a definition.
> But I do think that noi-clauses in general, and
> the noi-clause used in the espansion of "lo" in particular, have an
> illocutionary force different from assertions. I'm now thinking "zo'e noi
> sa'a broda" could be it.
Hmm. Could you spell out a bit more what this means? I'd interpret that
as "zo'e brodas, but this isn't the main point of my text", just making
explicit what's already implicit in relegating the assertion to
a noi-clause. I would take that kind of subtlety to be extralogical.