left-branching "noi"-clause

latro'a

{{{2}}}

not in this particular case, no, but saying that you can just generally left-attach is deceptive because the semantics of left-attachment are different, and also specific to description sumti anyways ci lo vo gerku poi zvati lo purdi ku'o ku noi cadzu this restricts the 4 dogs to be in the field and comments that incidentally the three we're talking about walk

selpa'i

{{{2}}}

latro'a: If you move {poi} to the left there, it becomes outer {poi}.

latro'a

{{{2}}}

left-poi are outer? that doesn't make any syntactic sense

selpa'i

{{{2}}}

Chapter 8 section 6

latro'a

{{{2}}}

because if there's any sort of defaulted outer quantifier (there isn't in xorlo, but if there was), the distinction would be important

selpa'i

{{{2}}}

Yeah, but CLL had no quantifier less descriptions. Thank God for xorlo. So they probably had no use talking about that.

latro'a

{{{2}}}

I feel like this is sufficiently absurd and has sufficiently little usage that it should just be changed because honestly this makes absolutely zero syntactic sense essentially it's saying that the relative clause somehow attaches to the *descriptor word itself* to the {PA LE} phrase

selpa'i

{{{2}}}

NOI are already weird in that they can come before {ku}.

latro'a

{{{2}}}

that part is a somewhat necessary evil having to do with the awkward syntax of inner/outer quantifiers

selpa'i

{{{2}}}

Yes, but it confuses beginners nonetheless.

latro'a

{{{2}}}

why exactly we can't attach a relative clause to a sumti and then to a quantified sumti separately is what is weird to me

selpa'i

{{{2}}}

I'm saying NOI is already weird, some more weirdness isn't surprising.