Re: deeply embedded VSO nightmare

>--- William Annis wrote:
>Anyway, to my recent horror I have discovered that due to how Vaior
>word order works -- VSO, Noun - Modifier, Adj - Modifier -- that
>gigantic ambiguities develop when using participles and relative
>clauses.
>
>This is fine:
>
>    tuar-o   va tath-an   daip-oth-an        fid-íal  aldove-n.
>    see-PRES I  woman-ACC walk-PRES=PART-ACC fast-ADV home-ACC
>    I see a woman walking quickly home.
>
>But this:
>
>    ler-o   na  tath  daip-oth       fid-íal  aldove-n
>    go-PRES the woman walk-PRES=PART fast-ADV home-ACC
>
>could be either "the woman walking quickly is going home" or "the
>woman walking quickly home is going."  Granted the second
>interpretation sounds a bit odd, but it's an example of the
>ambiguities I've run into: which verb does 'aldoven' go with when the
>meaning doesn't make it entirely clear.
Hmm.  (I have completely overlooked this thread so I may be repeating things.)
Well, Dunamy's VSO, it'd have:

"I see a woman walking quickly home"
Sai aum ara kav, ä vaugi syas d'um fäs.

"The woman walking quickly is going home"
Kui kavs, ä vaugi fäs, ar'um.

"The woman walking quickly home is going"
Kui kavs, ä vaugi fäs d'um.

The difference *here* is that <vaugi> "walk" doesn't take a direct object,
while <kui> "go" does--so <vaugi d'um> "walking to home" and <kui ar'um>
"going home" are already disambiguated.

But even if it wasn't, there's still that comma...

     *Muke!

Reply