In a message dated 2/11/2002 9:58:03 AM Central Standard Time, arosta@uclan.ac.uk writes:#And I don't agree that {ta se jdima lo jdima be ta} means "it costs Oh Lord! Let's not get started on that again! The last note I have is Cowan saying that {ro broda cu brode} entails {su'o broda cu brode}, but I have plenty where he -- and countless others -- have said the opposite, expanding this as a conditional. So I will stay away from that version until we have a ruling again ut nunc. <Logically, makau is equivalent to ce'u, and other qkau are equivalent to as-yet-uncreated cousins of ce'u. If Jorge can convince me that main clause makau can be replaced by ce'u with the meaning preserved, then I may recognize some logical basis for his usage.> Well, I am not sure that {makau} and {ce'u} are equivalent; I think that there are at least scoping differences between them, if not more. But I welcome the support for questioning xorxes' usage. <That said, kosher qkau in subordinate bridi are already somewhat idiomatic, in that (say) "ma" is, logically, complexly derived from "ma kau", contrary to surface appearances (which give the impression that "ma kau" is, logically, simplexly derived from "ma").> And, of course, I am not sure about this derivation; it seem perfectly possible that the surface structure is essentially correct -- with the details obscure in either case. That is, that main clause {qkau} is just {q} (in fact, this on either interpretation). |