Am 22.08.2018 um 17:08 schrieb SuStel:

Jesus Christ.

[...]

So forgive me if I condense all those paragraphs down to "only." BECAUSE THAT'S WHAT IT MEANS.

Please, calm down.

It was YOU who has always taught me not to interpret TKD just because one thinks that's what it means.

It was YOU who has always attacked me just to say that if it's not explicitely written down than we cannot assume that it's the way we understand it.

Okrand does not use the word "only".
You did. You just did what you always accused me of doing.

I did not say there's a RULE that other question words can't be used as pronouns. I said "only 'Iv and nuq... act like pronouns." I didn't say Okrand denied any others. Those are the ones described in the text as acting like pronouns; all the others are given different instructions. With all question words accounted for, ONLY 'Iv and nuq act like pronouns. The others don't, because they are explicitly used in other ways, and because they were left out of the 'Iv and nuq description.

That doesn't mean Okrand can't add such a use later. But it does mean that using, say, 'ar as a number pronoun violates the instructions for its use, and adds the word to the list of pronoun-like question words that Okrand did NOT add it to himself. You are making up new rules of grammar that violate the existing rules.

I do not say don't interpret TKD; I do not say don't say anything that is not explicitly stated. I DO say not to ADD anything to your interpretation that isn't explicitly stated or demonstrated through example. My saying "only" doesn't deny the possibility that Okrand will later give us an explicit statement or a demonstration through example.

-- 
SuStel
http://trimboli.name