On Tue, Jun 1, 2010 at 12:20 AM, Ian Johnson
<blindbravado@gmail.com> wrote:
Is there a (preferably compact) way to say not:
{ko'a broda ko'e ko'i} because ....
but instead:
{ko'a broda ko'e ko'i} and {ko'i} is the x3 of broda because ...
The specific situation I'm thinking of is with {pacna}, justifying why the x3 is what it is. I was saying something like "x1 hopes for x2 with expected outcome x3 and the expected outcome is what it is because ..." Saying that the {pacna} predicate as a whole is justified by this thing isn't quite right, because the x1 doesn't hope for x2 for that reason, and in fact the reason x1 would hope for x2 would probably be a {se mukti}, whereas this reason might be, say, a {se rinka} (perhaps if x1 hopes for a physical impossibility, which is what came up in this case).
mu'o mi'e latros.
ko'a broda ko'e ko'i poi se rinka/mukti ... Seems to be he most straightforward, I guess, but your particular examples seems to not really be what you want to say....
--gejyspa