Pierre Abbat wrote:
The ma'oste definition of {me} would give "x1 is specific to the word 'spaghetti' in aspect x2", which is not all that clear what it means.I take {me} in type-1 and type-2 fu'ivla to be merely a syntactic word turning a sumti into a selbri, whose place structure can be anything.
Correct in the first part as to my intent - the ma'oste does specify the place structure though, and loose undefined place structures are uncool - we have BAI and fi'o constructs to solve that.
{ti me la ko'oc. la xekri} "This is black cohosh" (different colors of cohosh are completely unrelated, so I don't think I'd use that word for a type 3 or 4).
ti xekri me la ko'hoc.would seem better to me. If you were talking about the color, then leka skari would go in the x2.
{mi me la'o gy. Virginia reel .gy. lo damryjgita} "I do the Virginia reel to the banjo".
I understand that as saying that you ARE a "Virginia reel", banjo-ly.
mi me la'o gy. Virginia reel .gy. dansu lo damryjgita
Or
mi dansu zgike be lo damryjgita tai la'o gy. Virginia reel .gy.
{le damba cu me ky.obu le bradi} "The fighter KOed the opponent".
That one would technically work for me with a fi to push le bradi after
the aspect place, though I still would prefer a tag, especially since it
would be an equally valid "borrowing" to say
"le bradi cu me ky.obu ri'a tu'a le damba."knocked out" being both a transitive verb and a stative adjective applying to the object of that verb afterwards.
lojbab