Wiki page Reduced logical form changed

posts: 1912

> --- Jorge Llambías <>
> > We don't know for sure, for example, whether
> > {na broda gi'e brode} is {(na broda) gi'e
> > (brode)},
> > as the parser says, or {na (broda gi'e brode)}.
> >
> If the parser says one way rather than the other,
> then that presumably is what it is. What more do
> you want in the way of a rule?

I'm happy to go with the parser here. You argued for
the other interpretation at some point. Notice that
means that for example in {su'o da na broda gi'e brode},
{na} can't have scope over {su'o}. So the general rule
that pre-selbri {na} goes to the beginning of the
prenex appears to be in conflict with the parse
in this case.

> In this case, however, the parser
> is in accord with the general pattern of the
> language and we would expect a left parenthesis
> after {na} to get the other form.)

No left parenthesis possible there, but {naku} will
do it.

> It seems by the last example that when you have a
> case of what the rules actually are you still
> have questions. What more is wanted for
> figureing out what the rules actually are.

I only mentioned that case because it is one where
you opposed the parse in the past, but if you now don't
oppose it, we are in agreement.

> thought this was about questions for which the
> parse is no help since they are about cross
> format equivalences, not interformat structures.)

Yes, it's mostly about those.

mu'o mi'e xorxes

Do you Yahoo!?
Check out the new Yahoo! Front Page.