Open ftyers opened 10 months ago
López Austín has:
Y quizá escapan; quizá no les acontece algo allí donde tienen temor, en donde tienen miedo que les pase algo.
Updated proposal:
Questions:
parataxis
not conj
, given lack of conjunction? (#2)advcl
to oncan, this is what UD_Spanish-AnCora has (see e.g. 3LB-CAST-d2-13-s10
).advcl(mochihua, oncan)
as opposed to advmod(mochihua, oncan)
?appos
(cf. #3), if it is clausal then it should be advcl
to mochihua (cf. #4) in inmahuizcuiyan omochiuhca
I like the nominal analysis where in oncan is also nominal and there is appos
from oncan to inmahuizcuiyan. And then could we do acl
from oncan to nemauhtiaya??
What do you think?
Option 1:
Option 2:
Option 3:
Option 4:
Option 3 for me....it also reflects the A&D translation a little bit better.
Actually, options 3 doesn't work because of having a clause with mark
attached with advmod
or obl
... :/ So neither does 2...
oh what about DET
for in before inmahuizcuiyan ?
We could do that, but then do we want that for in oncan too? And then do we make oncan NOUN
instead of ADV
?
We could do that, but then do we want that for in oncan too? And then do we make oncan NOUN instead of ADV ?
Yeah I'm okay with that. That also helps in that the conj
is between two items of the same category with I really like.
Like this?