From jjllambias@xxxxxxx.xxxx Sun Aug 22 09:57:50 1999 X-Digest-Num: 218 Message-ID: <44114.218.1171.959273825@eGroups.com> Date: Sun, 22 Aug 1999 09:57:50 PDT From: "Jorge Llambias" From: Ron Hale-Evans > > L1. menske : menli :: ji'eske : xadni > > L2. .i ke menske tai menli ke'e tai ke ji'eske tai xadni ke'e > > L3. .i menske du menli ji'eske > >I'm pretty sure L3 is ungrammatical; what's wrong with it? It is grammatical, but it doesn't say what you want. It is a four component tanru. {du} is just another brivla, like {menske}, {menli} and {ji'eske}. You might say: zo menske cu munsi'u lu menli ji'eske li'u {menske} has the same meaning as {menli ji'eske}. >And how about L2? L2 is ungrammatical. The cmavo of selmaho BAI, like {tai}, can be used to tag a sumti or a selbri, much like tenses. They don't work as connectives by themselves. You might say something like: zo menske peki'i zo menli zo ji'eske peki'i zo xadni panra {menske} in relationship to {menli} is parallel to {ji'eske} in relationship to {xadni}. In my last mail in reponse to Mark I wanted to express the relationship ja'ai:ja'a::nai:na, where ja'ai is the new cmavo Mark was proposing. I wrote: zo ja'ai joi zo ja'a zo nai joi zo na mintu le ka ckini simxu "ja'ai"&"ja'a" are the same as "nai"&"na" in the relationship between them. co'o mi'e xorxes