Ok, I don't know how to describe that better. Basically, if {cu} says "ok, we're done with this sumti, now do a selbri" but that itself is happening inside a LE, then why can't the following selbri be converted by the outer LE?
On Thu, Apr 28, 2011 at 11:06 AM, .alyn.post.
<alyn.post@lodockikumazvati.org> wrote:
On Thu, Apr 28, 2011 at 07:49:21AM -0700, Ben Foppa wrote:
> Lojban for Beginners says "...consider how you would say le tamne pe
> le ninmu klama 'the woman traveller's cousin' with this kind of
> nesting. You could flip it around as le le ninmu klama tamne — but
> then, how can you tell where the 'possessor' ends and where the
> 'possessee' begins?"
>
> I wonder why a construct like "le le ninmu klama cu tamne" wouldn't
> work, to separate the argument to the first "le" (which is "ninmu
> klama"), from the argument to the second "le" (which is "tamne"). Is
> the purpose of "cu" not simply to separate two selbri when they are
> consecutive arguments, or when one is the argument to another?
>
You can use {ku} to terminate the inner {le}:
le le ninmu klama ku tamne
-alyn
--
.i ma'a lo bradi ku penmi gi'e du