On Tue, Dec 16, 2008 at 8:59 PM, Pierre Abbat <
phma@phma.optus.nu> wrote:
>
> Now consider {su'oda na renro lo cutci gi'e karnypre}. I'm going to try to
> transform it. If I do it wrong, please tell me.
> su'oda na renro lo cutci gi'e karnypre
> su'oda na renro lo cutci .ije su'oda karnypre
first part says, the second part now says that there is at least one
journalist. But what we had in the first sentence was:
su'oda ge na renro lo cutci gi karnypre
=su'oda ge karnypre gi na renro lo cutci
=su'oda ge karnypre ginai renro lo cutci
=su'oda karnypre gi'enai renro lo cutci
=su'oda karnypre gi'e na renro lo cutci
> If what you mean is "There is a journalist who doesn't throw a shoe", that's
> {su'oda renro lo cutci nagi'e karnypre}.
That one too, yes. So the scope of {na} in {na gi'e} is just {renro lo cutci}.
> All sumti are terms, but not all terms are sumti. {naku} is a term but not a
> sumti. Even though it's not a sumti, it can be the object of a preposition
A preposition is part of a term. {naku} is already a full term and so
can't be the object of a preposition.
> or
> {pe} (or any other GOI). So you can say weird things like {le gerku goi naku
> cu tavla le mlatu ba naku}.
That's {ba [ku] naku} at the end, two separate terms. (Not that this
tells us much about the scope of {na}.)