RE: [jboske] la, lai, me

["And Rosta" <a.rosta@lycos.co.uk>]

pc:
> araizen@newmail.net writes:
> 
> <<
> 
> Having both 'me' and 'du' is probably redundant, but the relativized
> 'pe' (I suppose that that's the bridiized 'pe') is better handled with
> 'me ko'a moi', because it not only allows you to claim the association
> between two sumti, but also what the relationship is, if need be.
> (Though unfortunately 'meko'amoi' is often called an abomination for
> some reason.)
> 
> >>
> "is an instance of it first"? I don't see any connection here with 
> {pe}. Maybe {me le ko'a moi} (or as close to that as is 
> grammatical), "is an instance of the itth" which makes a sort of 
> sense if we can imagine sets of things ordered (somehow) by whose 
> they are and then pick them out thus. But getting the "it" in seems a 
> difficult thing to do: I can't find a cmavo that converts {k'o'a} or 
> (my favorite) {mi} into something that parses before {moi}. Event 
> the sumti-to-mex widgets won't quite encompass that one. 

I remember xorxes discovering this weird locution. As you say,
the basic idea of "X's Y" being done as "the Xth Y" is an attractive
one, but I can't work out how {me ko'a moi} gets us to that meaning.
I'd have guessed it was {mo'e ko'a moi}. What's wrong with {mo'e
ko'a moi}? And how can {me ko'a moi} parse, given that {me ko'a}
is a selbri and {moi} requires somesort of MEX argument? (I know
this was explained first time round, but I can neither remember
nor guess what the explanation was.)

--And.