On Fri, Oct 1, 2010 at 4:30 PM, Luke Bergen <
lukeabergen@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> And "zmanei" does not mean "ko'a zmadu lo ka ce'u
>> nelci ko'e", so it's not an example of the kind of -zma/-mau we were
>> talking about.
>
> I didn't think it did. I assume it means {ko'e zmadu ko'i lo ka ko'a nelci
> ce'u}.
want the x1 of nelci to be the x1 of the lujvo, but also nelci is in a
subordinate position, so it's rather atypical.
The cases we were discussing were ordinary augmentatives, comparatives
and superlatives. "mutce lo ka ce'u broda", "zmadu fi lo ka ce'u
broda", "traji lo ka ce'u broda".
> my two cents (and I'm probably glico biased)... I like e.g. {tcebarda}. I
> think it seems right that if I want to say "tom is very stupid when it comes
> to girls" I can say {la tam cu tcebebna tu'a lo ninmu}. If I break this
> lujvo apart into a tanru it still makes sense given the bridi tail.
There's no reason to bring up tanru. A lujvo is not the short version
of a tanru.
> If it
> were {la tam cu bebnytce tu'a lo ninmu} then breaking it up into a tanru
> would yield {la tam cu bebna be tu'a lo ninmu be'o mutce}. It seems like
> making the {tce} a suffix wouldn't be useful in most cases for adding more
> sumti places.
"la tam cu bebnytce tu'a lo ninmu" to me means "la tam cu mutce lo ka
ce'u bebna tu'a lo ninmu". A lujvo does not "break apart into a
tanru".
"mi dadgau lo mapku lo genxu" means "mi gasnu lo nu lo mapkau cu dandu
lo genxu", nothing like "mi dandu gasnu lo mapku lo genxu".