2010/10/8 Jorge Llambías
<jjllambias@gmail.com>
>> If the second line is by a second person, it's like a new text. It
>> doesn't have to be taken as one single text.
>
> I don't think it /has/ to. I merely think it /should/.
"Should" or "could"?
Should. If I had meant could, I would have said could. It's ability to be taken as one text is not in question. We already know it "could".
> For the following
> reason:
>
> lo verba cu cusku lu .i mi nelci lo mi cnino .yyyyyyyy. li'u .i lo vy mamta
> cu cusku lu mlatu li'u .i lo verba ku .e lo mamta cu cusku lu .i mi nelci lo
> mi cnino .yyyyyyyy. mlatu li'u
"lo verba jo'u lo mamta". With ".e" it's false, since it expands to:
lo verba cu cusku lu .i mi nelci lo mi cnino .yyyyyyyy. mlatu li'u
.ije lo mamta cu cusku lu .i mi nelci lo mi cnino .yyyyyyyy. mlatu
li'u
Thanks. I wasn't aware of that.
Anyway, I'm lost as to the point you want to make here. Sure, one
possible interpretation of the mother's text is as completing the
child's text. So?
mu'o mi'e xorxes