On Sunday, April 5, 2015 at 2:25:28 PM UTC+2, selpa'i wrote:
> The last sentence is obviously the hardest one, because it is so vague
> and metaphorical. But I think what I mean is that each subject can be
> completely themselves at this place, that no aspect of them needs to
> change. I had a little trouble with selpa'i's second version of this
> (what selbri does the "fa"s refer to and how does the indirect question
> work?), but I think maybe it is getting at this?
> ".i go'i fa lo vi stuzi noi bu'u ke'a zifre lo ka ckaji ma kau kei fa mi
> .e do .e mi'o"
It could be translated back into English as:
"this place, where me, you and we are free to have whatever properties
that we do"
The first {fa} is {go'i}'s x1, which is the previous sentence's x1.
I really like that way of expressing it! So the second fa replaces the ke'a in the noi?
Why should I reference the previous sentence and replace its x1? Is it just a poetical way of phrasing? Does the phrase work without it (".i lo vi stuzi noi bu'u ke'a zifre lo ka ckaji ma kau kei fa mi
.e do .e mi'o")?
The second {fa} points to {zifre}.
mi'e la selpa'i mu'o