David Cortesi wrote:
> It was {sedu'u}, the-fact-of, I didn't know. This is a useful template:
> "I said that x-is-y" ==> {mi pu cusku sedu'u <bridi>}
you lack a gadri before sedu'u in that template. abstractors like nu,
du'u, zu'o (see below) and so on always turn something into a brivla,
which you need to turn into a sumti first, or else you'll mash them
together (with cusku in this case) to a tanru!
> But given Michael wanted to specify they were pleasing to view, I notice
> that {kukte} actually takes x2 as the sense being pleased. So I don't
> get why {be} is needed to attach the qualifier... Would this be just as
> valid?
>
> .i mi pu klama fo me lai andilis cmana noi kukte zu'o viska
>
>
> ...which are pleasing to the activity of seeing?
like above you need a gadri (lo is usually used with abstractors, at
least when adhering to xorlo), otherwise there's no need for be, but
AFAIK it's not wrong either. it would just be more intuitive to remove
be in this case.
- Timo
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature