Re: talsa

["Jorge J. Llambías" <jorge@xxxxxxxxxx.xxx.xxx]

la kolin cusku di'e

> ({le <do velcki>} cu {stidi <lo [ka'e danfu]>})
>
>Translation: Your explanation suggests there is an answer.
>
> I don't understand the use of "ka'e" in this position.

{lo ka'e danfu} is "something that can be an answer". I did not
want to assert that it was necessarily the answer he was after.

> I'm also a little confused by "le do velcki". 
> Now, what does "le do velcki" mean? Clearly the "do" is intended
> as a possessive, but "do velcki" means "you are an explanation",
> so why should "le do velcki" mean "your explanation", which is,
> semantically, clearly the intent?

{le do velcki} has the same meaning as {le velcki pe do}. 
{do velcki} does mean like you say "you are an explanation", but 
what follows {le} is never a whole bridi. Think of it as inserting {do}
into the sumti {le velcki} as a modifier. This is explained in 
chapter 8 of the grammar. 

> (mu'a {<lu [(xo da) (xadni do)] li'u> cumki})
>
> Does "xoda xadni" mean "xo xadni" with the "da" taking
> the value of the answer? 

No, {xoda xadni do} means "How many things are the body of you?"
{da} is a sumti and {xo} quantifies it (or rather asks for a quantifier).

> ja lu xoda xadni le pa sezvi be do li'u 
>
> Again, I'm confused by the "pa". Here, the x2 of "xadni"
> is "(le {pa <sezvi [be do]>})", and I'm lost in trying to
> translate "pa sezvi be do"

You can't translate it by itself without the {le}. {le pa sevzi be do} 
means "the one and only self of you". Here it was important to 
emphasize that we were talking of a single self.

> Translation: As an aside, in my opinion no human language
> limits the expression of ideas.
>
> Personally, I disagree. I believe that *all* languages
> limit the expression of ideas, but are generally flexible 
> enough to permit a back-and-forth to communicate meaning.

If the meaning can be communicated, in what sense can the
ideas not be expressed then?

> co'o mi'e kolin.

co'o mi'e xorxes