Le vendredi 5 décembre 2014 07:46:43 UTC+9, Ilmen a écrit :
On 04/12/2014 19:07, Gleki Arxokuna
wrote:
According to another xorxe's definition {po} is
expanded into
po = [GOI] poi ke'a se steci le ka ce'u srana
In
the
BPFK Section "Subordinators", {pe X} is defined as {poi ke'a
srana X}.
If {po X} is defined as "poi ke'a se steci le ka ce'u srana X", then
I don't see much the difference with {pe} as defined in the BPFK
section.
However I think {pe X} would be better defined as {poi ke'a X co'e},
to have a better parallel with co'e / zo'e / xo'e / do'e / tu'a /
zo'ei.
I agree. I asked once a related question:
https://groups.google.com/d/topic/lojban/wvLz7Ew6bzI/discussion
{poi ke'a X co'e} is better as a definition of {pe X} in order to let {pe SUMSMI} have a reasonable meaning.
However, we should make explicit that both this definition and the current BPFK's definition {poi ke'a srana X} contradict the CLL description in Chapter 9, Section 10:
"Example 10.5 and Example 10.6 have the full semantic content of Example 10.1 and Example 10.2 respectively." as I wrote in my second post in the thread above, for example:
{pe cu'u ry} = {poi ke'a co'e cu'u ry}
it is similar to {poi ry cusku fi'o co'e ke'a}, but not equal to {poi ry cusku ke'a}.
I used to assume that {po X} was synonymous with {poi X ke'a ponse},
maybe wrongly.
I rather prefer your assumption to {poi ke'a se steci le ka ce'u srana}, though, in any case, I will obey the final decision of BPFK.
mu'o mi'e la .ilmen.