On Fri, May 11, 2012 at 8:45 AM, Michael Turniansky
<mturniansky@gmail.com> wrote:
"lo'i mi .e la djan" is not grammatical because "lo'i" (being a LE) can only take a brivla (with perhaps an inner qualifier). If followed by a KOhA, it will assume it's a "pe"-type qualifier (e.g. like "lo me gerku"). lu'i on the otgher hand, specifically takes sumti and makes them into other sumti types.
--gejyspa
I see. So lo'i doesn't eat the whole thing, just the first thing until .e, whereas lu'i does. It also turns out I didn't want lo'i because I wanted loi, which means I actually wanted lu'o, because I got sets and masses mixed up again.
On Fri, May 11, 2012 at 7:01 AM, Jonathan Jones
<eyeonus@gmail.com> wrote:
On Fri, May 11, 2012 at 5:46 AM, Jorge Llambías
<jjllambias@gmail.com> wrote:
On Fri, May 11, 2012 at 12:16 AM, Jonathan Jones <
eyeonus@gmail.com> wrote:
> Changes in bold:
>
> #41. lo'i mi .e la.djan. .e la snime .e la.flyfis. ku kans'iu xabju lo vu
> cmalu zdani
>
> #54. cy: xu do'o se panzi
> by: go'i .i mi'a se panzi lo cimei noi me lo'i pa nanla .e re nixli
Grammatically you need "lu'i ... [lu'u]" in those, not "lo'i ... ku",
but I don't think sets live in houses or have (this kind of) parents.
I don't see why it needs to be "lu'i" and not "lo'i". Isn't "lo'i X" "the set of X"?
Does this have something to do with the difference between a "sumti6" and a "sumti2", and what do the # in "sumti#" mean in camxes anyway?
--
mu'o mi'e .aionys.
.i.e'ucai ko cmima lo pilno be denpa bu .i doi.luk. mi patfu do zo'o
(Come to the Dot Side! Luke, I am your father. :D )