Wiki page Reduced logical form changed

posts: 2388


> pc:
> >
> > --- 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.

Hmmm! I wonder what the question was at that
time. Maybe I'll have to reconsider in abroader

> 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.

Ah so! Yes, that does make a difference. The
whole cannot be unpacked as {su'o da na broda ije
su'o da brode} since the two {su'o da} do not
collapse. The "source" must then be {su'o da na
broda ije da brode}, hence {su'o da zo'u da na
broda ije da brode}, where the scope of {su'o} is
clearly over that of {na}. I wonder what was the
problem under discussion that led me to the other
view. Oops!

> > 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.

Surely there is some device that will give {na
(broda gi'e brode)}, whether or not it is called
a parenthesis. Working out the "source" for this
is going to be a bit messy, though; apparently it
is {naku zo'u su'o da zo'u ge da broda gi da
brode} but there are questions, I suspect, about
> > 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.
> >(I
> > 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.