On Tue, Mar 6, 2012 at 1:40 PM, Pierre Abbat
<phma@phma.optus.nu> wrote:
On Tuesday, March 06, 2012 14:26:16 Jonathan Jones wrote:
> On Tue, Mar 6, 2012 at 12:22 AM, Janek <
j-sz@o2.pl> wrote:
> > On 6 March 2012 02:38, Jonathan Jones <
eyeonus@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > abu: mi nelci ti
> > > by: ji'a go'i
> >
> > {go'ira'o}, not {go'i}
>
> No. It's just go'i.
>
> The expansion on the above is not
>
> abu: mi nelci ti
> by: ji'a do nelci ti
>
> It is
>
> abu: mi nelci ti
> by: ji'a mi nelci ti
Since "mi" is not explicit in the sentence with "go'i", it still refers to A.
With "ra'o", the implicit "mi" would refer to B.
If A pointed to something close to A but far from B and said "mi nelci ti",
and B said "ji'a go'i ra'o", would B be stating that he likes something close
to B and far from A?
> ra'o is needed to distinguish between
>
> A: mi lumci le mi karce
> B: mi go'i
>
> A: I wash my car.
> B: I wash A’s car.
"go'i" with no subject would mean "A washes A's car".
My mistake. I was under the impression that go'i kept the referents the same, such that
abu: xu do klama lo zarci
by: go'i
means
abu: xu do klama lo zarci
by: mi klama lo zarci
not
abu: xu do klama lo zarci
by: do klama lo zarci
whereas ra'o causes the sumti to be re-evaluated from the speaker's perspective, such that
abu: xu do klama lo zarci
by: go'ira'o
means
abu: xu do klama lo zarci
by: do klama lo zarci
not
abu: xu do klama lo zarci
by: mi klama lo zarci
> and
>
> A: mi lumci le mi karce
> B: mi go'i ra'o
>
> A: I wash my car.
> B: I wash B’s car.
--
lo ponse be lo mruli po'o cu ga'ezga roda lo ka dinko