On Tue, Dec 31, 2002 at 07:17:39PM +0000, Jorge Llambias wrote:
> la djorden cusku di'e
> > > >mi nitcu fi lenu setca lei vi cukta ce'u poi tanxe (vo'e? depending on
> >what
> > > >it means these days, or maybe ri to avoid the question)
> >
> >He could currently do a "tu'a lo tanxe" thing in x2. But you're
> >ignoring his "le" on the "nu", which makes no sense---it's pretty
> >difficult to refer specifically to future events, especially if you
> >don't even have a box yet. So why le? We keep hitting these all
> >over the place (cf. *mi djica lenu mi citka).
>
> I know {le nu} isn't right there, that's why I had used {le du'u}.
> But ce'u makes even less sense, and we were discussing the x2 of
> nitcu in any case, so I just ignored that part.
>
> >So, how about add an eliptical gadri? "lai'u" or some such. The
> >meaning is zi'o-style for gadri---it means we don't feel like putting
> >a gadri here, but we have to. So:
> [...]
>
> Congratulations, you've discovered the intensional gadri!
> That's what I use {lo'e} for.
So how about using an experimental cmavo for it? If you're really
using "lo'e" as a zi'o for gadri, why use an existing gadri which
obviously has a definition other than that?
Are you saying you think this is equivalent to your buska/sisku
stuff? Or just compatible with it?
--
Jordan DeLong - fracture@allusion.net
lu zo'o loi censa bakni cu terzba le zaltapla poi xagrai li'u
sei la mark. tuen. cusku
Attachment:
pgp00127.pgp
Description: PGP signature