2010/10/15 Jorge Llambías
<jjllambias@gmail.com>
On Fri, Oct 15, 2010 at 6:51 PM, Jonathan Jones <
eyeonus@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> You're right. The example's wrong. {sipna} has no spot for location.
Arguably the English translation is slightly wrong, in that it's too
specific, but then the most likely connection of an event like that
with a room is that the event takes place in the room, so ...
I did say later in my original post that I believe the author merely mistook the place structure of sipna.
> The
> example should have been {la.alis. sipna ne'i lo ri kumfa}, or better,
> {la.alis. [cu] sipna fi'o nenri lo kumfa pe ri [ku] [fe'u]}, which also
> shows the omitted bits in [].
Why do you think "fi'o (se) nenri" is better than "ne'i"?
I don't think {fi'o se nenri} is better. I merely used {fi'o nenri} instead of {ne'i} to show .deivyd. they were equivalent. Which is the same reason I did {lo kumfa pe ri} instead of {lo ri kumfa}. Thank you for pointing out that I was saying that the room was in the sleeping. I was thinking backwards. So {ne'i} = {fi'o se nenri}.
But you can't have loose sumti inside a fi'o - fe'u
You want either: "la .alis cu sipna fi'o se nenri [fe'u] lo ri kumfa"
or "la .alis cu sipna fi'o nenri be lo ri kumfa [fe'u]"
Ah. I thought fe'u terminated the entire fi'o construct, not the selbri portion. I assume this is for occasions when you want to fi'o a tanru?
And if you include [fe'u] and [ku] you should probably also include
[ge'u] and [vau] and [be'o], so:
la.alis. cu sipna fi'o nenri be lo kumfa pe ri [ge'u] [ku] [be'o] [fe'u] [vau]
mu'o mi'e xorxes