WikiDiscuss

On Apr 4, 2005 11:46 AM, John Cowan <cowan@ccil.org> wrote:
>
> There is certainly no reason why you can't create a proposal with
> place structure changes and the reasons for them under the byfy
> aegis.

I'll think about it. One reason for not doing it would be that
it's a lot of work and it's not clear that it has much of a chance
of being accepted, but maybe it's worth at least starting it.

> > That's one of the reasons I proposed at some point to
> > re-interpret blank in the prescription as {zi'o} rather than
> > as {zo'e}, to bring the prescription more in line with usage.
>
> This evades the issue, though, because it brings in novel semantics
> under the table. If you want new semantics for gismu, figure
> out what they should be, rather than claiming that "da broda"
> and "da broda de" have different possible values for da. Doing
> that splits each n-place gismu into 2^n-1 new predicates, only
> one of which has a formal definition.

Yes, you would need definitions for all of those, but most
of them can be read directly from the existing definitions.
This is because the existing definitions are written in English,
and in most cases the English words don't have the restrictions
imposed be the argument structures of gismu.

> (It also forces observatives
> to be treated as even more of a special case than they already are.)

I don't treat omitted x1 in any special way.

mu'o mi'e xorxes