On Fri, Sep 24, 2010 at 09:10:19PM -0600, Jonathan Jones wrote:Oh right, I meant to ask you about that, because I saw you modeling
> Where I'm quoted as saying { .i.ienai mi skami nu surla .i ri gunka}, I
> meant to say {na surla}.
>
> Again, me. At { .i.uacai.ui .i ko'a rokci .i ko'e grana} the {.i} in {.i
> ko'a} shouldn't be there.
>
> This one isn't really a grammar issue: At { .i.iecu'i naja'a go'i .i xu do
> djica}, the {naja'a} was me trying to say, basically, "I'm cool either
> way". I couldn't find a midpoint cmavo between {na} and {ja'a}.
>
> {.i ca ko'a goi lo rokci pe mi .ije ko'e goi lo grana pe do} is a few
> lines early. I said it after you said {.i mi dunda ko'a do .ije do dunda
> ko'e mi} but before you said {.i mi lebna lo rokci pe mi do}, because
> after the transfer of possession the {pe} was reversed. (Which also means
> that {lo rokci pe mi} should've been {pe do}. :) )
>
that in the game.
I originally used "pe do" and "pe mi" because I wanted to translate
the sentence: "I have your stick"
I need some way to say "I posses this stick which you own." (or the
inverse, "I own the stick which you posses.")
I thought that "pe" could be used in this way, so I could say: {.i
mi ponse lo grana pe do} and mean "I have your stick."
Is there a better way to express this? It has certainly be the most
difficult issue I've had translating material.
-Alan
--
.i ko djuno fi le do sevzi