WikiDiscuss

On Mon, Aug 23, 2004 at 01:43:37PM -0700, Jorge Llamb?as wrote:
>
> --- Robin Lee Powell wrote:
> > > When the sumti is a quantified expression (which does not strictly
> > > have referents) the issue is a bit more complex.
> >
> > Too esoteric.
>
> We can ignore the issue, but then we are not defining the language.

We can't define *everything* in the word definitions! There will still
be a CLL, and other learning materials.

Do you have a specific suggestion?

You trimmed too much, by the way.

> > > > noi immediately follows a simple sumti; for descriptions
> > > > smuti it can appear in a variety of places, the semantics of
> > > > which are beyond the scope of this definition.
> > >
> > > It shouldn't be beyond the scope, because any complication that
> > > appears with descritpion sumti is already present with simple
> > > sumti, which can also be quantified.
> >
> > The CLL seems to disagree with you on that point. Regardless, it's
> > the effects on the location relative to LE sumti that are outside of
> > scope, because the definition is already big enough.
>
> On what point does the CLL seem to disagree?

The CLL seems to say that the cases where position matters are only
relevant to description sumti, and that those cases, while requiring
quantification, are a seperate issue from those issues surrounding
quantification of simple sumti.

> I suspect I didn't make myself clear.
>
> Simple sumti present two cases:
>
> S1 {ko'a noi broda}
> S2 {PA ko'a noi broda}

I don't understand what the difference between those two things is, and
I don't see anything in the CLL that indicates that there is a
difference. Chatper and verse, please.

> Description sumti present seven cases:
>
> D1 {le brode noi broda}
> D2 {le brode ku noi broda}
> D3 {le noi broda ku'o brode}
> D4 {PA le brode noi broda}
> D5 {PA le brode ku noi broda}
> D6 {PA le noi broda ku'o brode}
> D7 {PA brode ku noi broda}
>
> D1, D2, D3, D4 and D6 behave like S1
> D5 and D7 behave like S2

All of the exmples in the CLL that talk about the positional variants
(this would be in section 6 of chapter 8) use both inner *and* outer
quantifiers, and make it clear that only when you have both does it
really matter.

I have no idea what you are talking about, but it's not the same thing
at all.

> The different points of application for the description cases do not
> introduce any complication that is not already present in the simple
> case.

Again, the CLL disagrees.

> > > I would say that in {ko'a noi ... zi'e poi ...} the noi clause
> > > applies to all the referents of ko'a, whereas in {ko'a poi ...
> > > zi'e noi ...} it applies to just those referents that are left
> > > after the poi restriction.
> >
> > Left-to-right order, then? That kills my definitions for noi and
> > poi, though. Kills them dead.
>
> Why?

ko'a noi broda zi'e poi brode cu brodi
= ko'a cu broda .i je ko'a cu brodi zi'e poi brode cu brodi
= ko'a cu broda .i je ko'a cu brodi .i je da me ko'a .i je da ge brode
gi brodi

Huh. Guess not. Tweaking zi'e for an .i je version.

> > > > || noi | PA broda noi brode cu brodi | PA broda goi ko'a cu
> > > > brode .i je ko'a cu brodi
> > >
> > > Works often, but not a general formula.
> >
> > <sigh> It's your formula. I don't have anything better.
>
> Yes, but when I offered it I did say it was not general.

Do you have anything better? I don't.

> > > > goi, unassigned | [sumti 1] goi [sumti 2] | [sumti 1] poi du
> > > > [sumti 2]
> > >
> > > This is {po'u}, not {goi}. If sumti1 has no referent to begin
> > > with, you can't restrict its referents to those of sumti2
> >
> > Suggestions?
>
> The same description as for both assigned should work.

That can't go in both directions. I've compromised.

BTW, making a mild change to poi; let me know if there's a problem.

poi + PA (but not ro or no) | PA broda poi brode cu brodi | PA da broda .i je da ge brode gi brodi

-Robin