Re: [jboske] more on shortening romu'ei stuff

["Jorge Llambias" <jjllambias@hotmail.com>]

la djorden cusku di'e

> I can give you a distinction between kakne and cumki:
> 	cumki fa lenu mi zatfa'i la barda jamfu
> 	kakne lenu mi zatfa'i la barda jamfu
> The first is true, the latter false.

Could you elaborate? How can it be possible that you find
him if he is not capable of being found? Is it because
with {kakne} the event has to be somehow up to you, or
up to Big Foot, and neither of you is up to it, whereas
with {cumki} it is left up to chance? The only thing
{kakne} seems to add is that it can select one of the
participants in the relationship and somehow peg the
possibility to it. But {ka'e} can't do that.

> I think anything which is
> true for kakne is true for cumki, but not the other way around.

That may very well be the case, but the difference as far
as I can see can only come from the fact that something
which is cumki may be not related by kakne to any of its
participants. But {ka'e} does not access any participant
the way {kakne} does.

> I
> would think cumki corresponds to one kind of su'omu'ei, and kakne
> to another kind of su'omu'ei (similarly, nibli corresponds to one
> kind of romu'ei, and nitcu or bilga correspond to another kind of
> romu'ei).

Well, {nitcu} and {bilga} raise the same issues as {kakne},
they involve some participant in particular, something that
{romu'ei} cannot do.

I can see the paraphrases:

broda su'omu'ei ko'a <--> le nu broda cu cumki ko'a
broda romu'ei ko'a <--> le nu broda cu sarcu ko'a

even though they are probably not strict equivalences.
But kakne/nitcu/bilga involve something else rather
different.

mu'o mi'e xorxes


_________________________________________________________________
MSN 8 with e-mail virus protection service: 2 months FREE* 
http://join.msn.com/?page=features/virus