On Wed, Jan 2, 2013 at 3:38 PM, Pierre Abbat
<phma@bezitopo.org> wrote:
On Wednesday, January 02, 2013 22:05:10 Remo Dentato wrote:
> Ok, but if (following the {-gau} pattern)
> {ko'a rodme'a ko'e ko'i ko'o ko'u fo'a}
> means
> {ko'a mleca lo su'u ko'e broda ko'i k'o' ko'u fo'a}
>
> I fail to understand how something may be less than an abstraction. The
> problem is that mleca2 is the term of comparison.
"-me'a" follows the same pattern as "-mau"/"-zma".
"ko'a rodme'a ko'e ko'i ko'o ko'u fo'a" means
"ko'a mleca ko'e lo ni ce'u broda ko'i ko'o ko'u fo'a". At least I think
that's right; I'm not sure where to put lo ve mleca.
I have to say that it has to be{ko'a mleca ko'e lo ni ce'u broda ko'o ko'u fo'a fo'e kei ko'i}, because, while {lo ve mleca} is a very seldomly used place, doing otherwise makes the resulting lujvo irregular, which defeats the point of jvajvo. So in your example {do} is {lo se nelme'a} and {lo cakla} is {lo xe nelme'a}.
E.g. "mi nelme'a do lo cakla" means "I like chocolate less than you do." This
is not to be confused with "mecnei", e.g. "mi necmei lo cakla lo najnimre" (I
like chocolate less than oranges). "neizma" and "zmanei" are their respective
antonyms.
mecnei and zmanei don't look like jvajvo to me. They certainly don't follow the rule I elaborated on above.
mecnei looks like {ko'e mleca ko'i loka ko'a nelci ce'u, which definitely doesn't fit. Same with zmanei.
Pierre
--
I believe in Yellow when I'm in Sweden and in Black when I'm in Wales.