Re: TEXT: advert

[jorge@PHYAST.PITT.EDU]

And:
> [This is a version of a text from an advertisement.]

I couldn't even guess what you meant.

> Suho buha cei ka da kau vusnei lohe bavmyxalselpinxe
> zohu

The prenex is grammatical:

There is at least one predicate bu'a = "is the property
of who likes whisky", such that:


> naho ku ge loi buha be lo gligicnau cu puhu gi
> lo kotnau ku zohe ge se buha gi cerda

This part is not grammatical. Eliminating "cu pu'u" it becomes
grammatical, but I don't know whether that totally changes
what you intended:

 naho ku
 ge loi buha be lo gligicnau gi lo kotnau ku
 zohe
 ge se buha gi cerda

This is making four claims, all of which are within the scope of the
na'oku:

        loi bu'a be lo gligicnau zo'e se bu'a
        lo kotnau zo'e se bu'a
        loi bu'a be lo gligicnau zo'e cerda
        lo kotnau zo'e cerda


>From the prenex bu'a doesn't have an x2, and I can't make any sense
of the first three sentences. The last one says that at least one
Scottish person inherits something.

I suppose the {dakau} in the prenex is meant as a lambda variable.
I don't think it works, because it already has a different meaning.
For example (using ke'a as the lambda variable):

        la pedros frica la markos le ka makau cinba ke'a
        Pedro differs from Marcos in who kisses them.

{ke'a} (or whatever we use as the lambda variable) is the one that
exhibits the propery. {makau} is a different thing altogether.

Jorge