On Sat, Dec 1, 2012 at 11:09 PM, la gleki
<gleki.is...@gmail.com> wrote:
On Sunday, December 2, 2012 1:30:39 AM UTC+4, aionys wrote:On Sat, Dec 1, 2012 at 6:17 AM, tijlan
<jbot...@gmail.com> wrote:
On 1 December 2012 12:09, ianek <
jan...@gmail.com> wrote:
> This is just what {se srana} or {selra'a} is.
instance, may be as much relevant to cfika1 as cfika3 may be -- a work
of fiction cu srana both its plot and its author (and possibly many
other things). Consider:
la .alis. cfika sera'a lo nixli
This doesn't necessarily say that the plot revolves around a girl --
it could as well be saying the work is dedicated to a girl.
I'm sorry, I don't see how anything based on {srana} could possibly mean "dedicated to". You'll have to explain.
Well, may be it's not that something is wrong with {sera'a/pe/srana} but rather wrong usage and/or glossing.
srana x1 pertains to/is germane/relevant to/concerns/is related/associated with/is about x2.
ckini x1 is related to/associated with/akin to x2 by relationship x3.
If we arbitrarily chose parts of those definitions we'd get
srana x1 is relevant to x2
ckini x1 is relevant to x2
which is nonsense.
ckini wouldn't be that. For one thing, you left out the x3, and for another, it isn't "relevant", it's "related". The Cold War isn't relevant to WWII, but it is related (by being a direct result of it).
If {srana} really gives us thematic role then all the other "is relevant to" meanings can be assigned to {ckini/seki'i}.