Re: cleft place structures

[cbmvax!uunet!math.ucla.edu!jimc]

> Date:  Fri, 31 May 91 12:44:17 -0400
> From:  shoulson@sirius.ctr.columbia.edu (Mark Shoulson)

> Um, this may be a Red Herring, but it seems to me that these cleft place
> structures have a lot in common with relative clauses.  

I also see the analogy.  In a subordinate clause the modified object is
assumed present in the first place after conversion of the clause. I'm
not sure how this is accomplished, but ke'a (right?) represents the
modified object, suitable for explicit placement in other cases (sorry
-- places).  There are also anaphora <digit>fi'e (like pa fi'e) to
represent explicitly the N'th place of the containing phrase.

In my ideal world filled with replicated sumti, the modified object 
anaphor would be provided automatically (if not user-provided) very
much like the anaphora for replicating into or out of abstract sumti.

A small point: just what is the replicated object?  Example:

	le mlatu poi         nenri  le mapku
	the cat  restrictive inside the hat

Is the occupant of nenri x1 "the cat", a sumti or...

	mi bajra fi'o  nenri  kuo       le kumfa
	I  run   (tag) inside (tag end) the room

is nenri x1 an abstract sumti something like "lo nu mi bajra"? (And is
this syntax right, particularly is kuo needed?  I know about ne'i but I
need to use fi'o.)  The first  interpretation is very natural, but if
the idea of modal operators is to add nonstandard cases to the brivla
relation, then they should relate the phrase arguments (hat, room) to
the superior bridi or s-bridi, not to its x1 occupant(s).  

In the first example the cat-thing is an x1 occupant of mlatu and what
I would like to see is that the bridi "x1 mlatu" is related to the hat.
In other words, "the relation of the sumti referent catting occurs
(restrictive) within the hat".  This isn't what we usually think of for
a subordinate clause on a sumti, but if you think about what's really
going on, that's really what it means.  

		-- jimc