On 19 April 2010 20:29, Geoffrey Stewart
<geoffstewart56@gmail.com> wrote:
2010/4/18 Jorge Llambías
<jjllambias@gmail.com>
On Sun, Apr 18, 2010 at 8:07 PM, tijlan <
jbotijlan@googlemail.com> wrote:
> Is it grammatical to introduce a lujvo with "cei" following a tanru,
> even if no pro-bridi is involved, like this:
>
> ti carna nalci vinji cei carna'ivinji
"cei" identifies the two predicates it joins, but a tanru and the
lujvo made with the tanru elements usually will be two different
predicates.
The tanru has the same place structure of the rightmost element.
(Except when "co" is involved, then things get complicated.)
The lujvo will have its own usually different place structure, based
on the arguments of all of its components. So strictly speaking it
would not make sense to connect a lujvo and a tanru with "cei" that
way, unless you are defining the lujvo as having the same meaning of
the tanru.
I think that was what he was trying to do, seeing how the rafsi his lujvo is composed of are from the gismu in the tanru.
Yes, and I didn't pay enough attention to the probable asymmetry between the place structures of each connected selbri. Also, according to jbofi'e, "cei" would assign "carna'ivinji" only to the tertau "vinji":
[ ( ti ) << | | carna nalci | vinji cei carna'ivinji | >> ]
(... which appears to me odd though, since the official definition says the target of "cei" is a selbri, not a brivla, and this "vinji" is not an individual selbri.)
I should have used "zei":
ti carna zei nalci zei vinji cei carna'ivinji
[ ( ti ) << | carna zei nalci zei vinji | cei carna'ivinji >> ]
mu'o mi'e tijlan