History: scope of selbri tcita

I believe the current prescription is that scope follows left-to-right, except for {na} (or NA?), which has maximally wide scope over the bridi.

This exception is a pointless complication that leads to confusion. It should be done away with. (The only defence of it has come from Nora (on jboske & phpbb), hingeing on the interpretation of nago'i. This is addressed on phpbb & will be recapped on the wiki in due course when we get round to writing up something on the interpretation of bridi anaphora.)

The scope rules, then, are as follows:

• outer has scope over inner
• for two elements at the same level, either (a) the former has scope over the latter, or (b) they have 'coordinate' scope (defined on Discussion: Three dogs attacked four men). Disambiguation between (a) and (b) is done either by glorking or by BAhE-subord/BAhE-coord.

-----

xorxes:
We also need to consider the scope of quantifiers in tagged terms with respect to the scope of the tag. There seem to be two options:

1. Since the term appears to the right of the tag, the tag has scope over the quantifier.
2. Since the tag is essentially an extension of the selbri, the term's quantifier has scope over the tag (as it does over the selbri too).

And: Are you talking about {PA1 ROI PA2 broda}?

xorxes: Yes, but it applies to other tags as well. Does {di'i ze broda} mean that the event occurs regularly within each of the seven broda, or that the seven broda are regularly distributed? I think the latter has to be {di'i lo ze broda}, and that {di'i ze broda} gives the former, i.e. {di'i} is within the scope of {ze}, just like the selbri of the bridi this term belongs to.

And: OK. So you prefer Option (2), & I agree (cf. {claxu} = {na ponse} with {na} with narrowest scope). But how does one express the reading where PA1 has scope over PA2? Whereas Option (1) offers an obvious way to express both readings, I'm not sure how Opt 2 would express both.

pc:

It is not clear where comments come in the general scheme of things — after additions (but when) and before discussion. In any case (since comments seem presently to be reorded in a black hole), the whole notion of scope needs to be looked at again, probably starting with the logical forms and working backward, since the other approach has led to the present mess. Ideally, the whole preselbri pack — and the similar BAI phrases — should go to the front in order. But that wreaks havoc with quantifiers and can't generally be cured with something like deMorgan, short of making the most common forms {ku}d to death. If there is a solution that also solves the independent quantifier problem, so much the better (though I don't see the connection).