WikiDiscuss Help

Forums > WikiDiscuss > methods of resolving mismatches between place structures and number of overt sumti > methods of resolving mismatches between place structures and number of overt sumti

methods of resolving mismatches between place structures and number of overt sumti


On Apr 3, 2005 10:16 AM, John E Clifford wrote:

> I was rejecting the view that
> {ta botpi fo no da} is somehow illegitimate
> altogether and in particular is incompatible with
> {ta botpi} tout court.

Nobody has ever argued that it is illegitimate altogether.

Many have argued that it is incompatible with {ta botpi}.
One way of making it compatible is to say that {ta botpi}
really is {ta botpi zi'o zi'o zi'o} rather than
{ta botpi zo'e zo'e zo'e}.

> Every dog must be of some breed --
> however broadly "breed" is defined. but many
> places ({botpi4} the usual example, though I
> suppose it could be argued it is not a good one)
> are not essential and so {no da} does not affectr
> some sense here.

Then we at least agree that {no da} is not compatible
with blank/zo'e in essential places? If so, we have identified
where our disagreement lies, namely:

> If you want to argue that all
> places are essential by definition or some such,

That's what I want to argue. That's why I dislike bloating,
because bloated relationships have a much more restricted
application than intended.

> then {no da} can never be correct, which seems
> extreme.

{no da} can never be omitted. Obviously it can often be correct.

> The point of leaving a blank is often
> — not always of course — that what goes in that
> place makes no difference and thus even if
> nothing goes there it should not affect the rest
> of the sentence.

That would be the blank = zi'o position.

mu'o mi'e xorxes

 


Show posts: