coi rodo
.uanai .e'o So if I wanted to say {mi ca tarti lo ka _attitudinal_ kei} Would that be gramatical? Would the {ce'u} necessarily implied by the {ka} be the speaker since all attitudinals are spoken from the perspective of the speaker? (excepting for {dai} of course). Or would there be no {ce'u} since {ce'u} is a sumka'i and needs a sumti place to occupy (and attitudinals have no sumti places)?
I ask because with the attitudinals, their scales, modifiers, categories and sheer compoundability, a speaker could articulate to a higher degree, his/her feelings than simply using brivla. And given that, there are times when you would want to express a feeling in bridi form, which brivla fail to adequately specify. I'm trying to get at a way of discussing an attitudinal compound in a bridi.
Could I assign the attitudinal compound to an assignable sumka'i using {goi} and discuss the attitudinal compound using that sumka'i?
ki'e da do
mi'e .neit. mu'o