Re: quantifiers on sumti - late response

[Veijo Vilva <veion@XIRON.PC.HELSINKI.FI>]

la lojbab cusku di'e
[...]
> There are some limits to what you can put before the bare selbri in a
> simple description.  We have expanded this to allow for preposed
> relative clauses after the Finnish model, and this took considerable
> work and debate.  A recent proposal to allow preposed "be/bei"
> constructs was embedded in last week's discussion - it might work, and
> might be useful, to people with a preposed grammar native structure.
> Veijo???  But no guarantees we could make it grammatical, and it is not
> importnat enough to justify a change if it causes anything more than a
> trivial expansion rule (if even then).

I haven't had much time lately for even reading the incoming mail but
the above caught my eye.  I didn't read the proposal to allow preposing
"be/bei" but the idea feels quite natural.  I think the following
additions might work:

 sumti_tail_A_112        :  selbri_130
                         |  selbri_130  relative_clauses_121


+                           /* preposed linkargs */
+                        |  linkargs_160  selbri_130
+                        |  linkargs_160  selbri_130  relative_clauses_121
                            /* explicit inner quantifier */
                         |  quantifier_300  selbri_130
                            /* quantifier both internal to a description,
                               and external to a sumti thereby made specific */
                         |  quantifier_300  selbri_130  relative_clauses_121


+                           /* explicit inner quantifier and preposed linkargs
 */
+                        |  quantifier_300  linkargs_160  selbri_130
+                        |  quantifier_300  linkargs_160  selbri_130
 relative_clauses_121
                         |  quantifier_300  sumti_90
                         ;

This would make possible sumti like, e.g.

  (1)     le be do  prami
   (Fin)     sinua  rakastava

  (2)     le re     be do  prami
   (Fin)     kaksi  sinua  rakastavaa

  (3)     le poi mi viska ku'o  re     be do  prami
   (Fin)     nakemani           kaksi  sinua  rakastavaa

I like the structure (of course :-), and I think it wouldn't mess up
anything.

  co'o mi'e veion
---------------------------------
.i mi du la'o sy. Veijo Vilva sy.
---------------------------------