Re: Special meaning of V-initial

[ucleaar <ucleaar@UCL.AC.UK>]

Chris:
> >And:
> >> > I agree. I would also prefer that V-initial not be singled out like
> >> > that.
> >> Do we know why it is? A relic of some ancient Brownian predilection?
> Jorge:
> >Something to do with the Loglan imperative, I think.
> I also remember seeing an argument related to relative phrases something
> like this:  in a {poi broda} phrase it's likely that you'll want x1 to be
> {ke'a} and to explicitly state x2.  If V-initial weren't special, and if
> syntax within a poi were consistent with sentence-level syntax, then you'd
> have to explicitly use {fe} or {zo'e} or {ke'a} to get to the x2.

Missing out {kea} is not something I'd wish to encourage, but be that
as it may, this rationale extends beyond relative phrases, since in
general it is possible to elide x1 but not have to mark by {fe} the
x2, so long as x2 remains post selbri.

> BTW should I stick this along with the historical explanation in the FAQ?
> I do think I've heard the question before.

Yes.

---
And