VSO order

["Mark E. Shoulson" <cbmvax!uunet!pucc.princeton.edu!shoulson>]

OK.  I've been seeing all the discussions about the VSO stuff, now it's
time for a few more comments.

First off, Lojbab, I think you made a mistake or three in your first post.
You discuss the phrase "le klama be le nanmu be'o le cripu" as meaning "the
goer to the man from the bridge".  It should be noted that "be'o" is the
*terminator* for "be"-incuded bridi, not the link.  The correct phrase is,
of course, "le klama be le nanmu bei le cripu [be'o]".

That out of the way.  The way I see it, using "be" when it's not needed is
absolutely equivalent to not using it at all.  It only makes a difference
if you're within a "le" sumti or some such, or else for complex tanru, as
be/bei joined bridi bind more tightly than others.  But in general, "klama
le nanmu le cripu" and "klama be le nanmu bei le cripu", as phrases in
isolation, ought to be equivalent.

Now, with regards to where the "be" attaches:  Well, "be" always comes
after the selbri, so it's gotta be the "next" sumti (hmmm.  That makes "mi
le nanmu klama be le cripu" sorta weird, as the first two sumti are linked,
and the last isn't.)  I agree with jimc about this, but only partly.  I see
the articles (LE/LA) as kind of "eating" the first place:  "le broda" means
"the thing(s) which I am describing as filling the x1 place of broda."
Thus, "le klama be le nanmu bei le cripu" would still mean "the goer to the
man from the bridge", as "le nanmu" would wind up in x1, since x1 isn't
elided.  However, I do *not* agree that this happens with "nu".  Clauses
introduced with "nu" I believe are just like anything else.  If their x1
place is elided (using current usage), then it's filled with "zo'e".  If
usage changes, then the next sumti will be in x1.  "nu" does not say
anything about its contnts other than making an abstraction out of it.  The
usage of "nu followed by an ellipsized x1 is very common, and will be a big
deal if a change in usage is seriously considered.

As jimc and Lojbab both point out, changing usage would just shift the
burden on who gets more marked from VSO to x1-less observatives, and the
marking isn't very strong one way or another.  My problem is that I like
VSO order, and I also like elliptical-x1 observatives; I don't know which
I'd rather make tougher.  I suppose I could learn to like marking my VSO's
with "fa", but then, it's less consistent.  Note, though, that many
observatives (and it's true that they are very commonly used) are, in fact,
zero-sumti, so would be unaffected.

So far as I can tell, the proposal of Nick's that Lojbab mentioned is
indistinguishable from the one currently under discussion.  According to
Lojbab, that proposal would have required that observatives with trailing
sumti have "fe" to skip over the x1 place, whichi would now follow the
selbri.  This is precisely the effect that dropping the x1-implied-zo'e
rule would have.

I think this covers most of what I have to say.  I don't think I'd shed any
tears no matter how this discussion turns out.

BTW, try to be a little more discriminationing in crossposts to conlang.  I
know some of you can't see the "To:" lines, so you can't tell whether the
post you're replying to originally went to both or just here, but try to
use some consideration.  The conlangers are probably already a little
annoyed at the somewhat skewed amount of coverage Loglan and Lojban are
getting in their group; no need to start posting what are really almost
purely Lojban concerns.

~mark