Re: do djica loi ckafi je'i tcati

[Jorge Llambias <jorge@PHYAST.PITT.EDU>]

I reply to John's reply to Chris's post. I didn't receive the original
post by Chris because I was unsubscribed to the list due to problems with
my mailer. Hopefully things are back to normal now.

> > But instead of adding new connectives or something, I think the real problem
> > is that the question was misphrased.  The correct translation of "would you
> > like coffee or tea?" should be:
> >
> > 4)      "do djica loi ckafi je'i tcati ku"
[...]
> > I suggest using a tanru connective not because the semantics of the tanru
> > connectives are hazier, but because it allows you to put the connective
> > within the scope of "loi",
[...]
> You are correct in your conclusions, but not (I think) in your reasoning.

I think the reasoning is correct. Even ignoring the tanruic ambiguity, that
method works. {lo ckafi ja tcati} is {da poi cjafi ja tcati), which we could
say is almost the same as {da poi ckafi gi'a tcati} and it still makes sense
to say {mi djica da poi ckafi gi'a tcati}, "I want something that is either
cofee or tea".

On the other hand, it can be thought in a different way and it doesn't work.

I'll change to {nitcu} instead of {djica} to avoid having to use {tu'a}.
What is the meaning of: {mi nitcu lo tanxe}?

Is it "I need something which is a box", or is it "there exists at least
one box such that I need it"?

> > 9)      "do djica tu'a loi ckafi ji loi tcati lu'u"
> >
> > (can "tu'a" enclose two connected sumti like that?  Or is there an implied
> > "lu'u" before "ji"?)
>
> This, I think (and so does Jorge, I believe) is the right general solution.

Well, I agree this is a solution, but I don't think it is the right general
solution. In the case of {djica}, it would seem that {tu'a} has to be used
anyway to avoid illegal sumti raising, so that the example is a bad one. When
there is no sumti raising, e.g. {do nitcu lo tanxe ji lo dakli}, using {tu'a}
seems wrong. {do nitcu lo tanxe ji'e dakli} may be all right, depending on
what is the answer to my question above, but an appropriate sumti connective
would be nice too.

Since it would be very simple to allow BAIs to work like that (they're already
allowed in forethought form, so why not in afterthought also?), I don't see
any reason not to.

At least {mau}, {me'a}, {du'i}, {li'e}, {pa'a}, {fa'e}, {ba'i} and {do'e} can
be given good use in this function.

Jorge