On Fri, Oct 1, 2010 at 7:23 PM, Pierre Abbat <phma@phma.optus.nu> wrote:
On Friday 01 October 2010 17:53:34 Jorge Llambías wrote:
My preference is for being as systematic as possible, so:
zmadu fi lo ka broda -> rodmau
mleca fi lo ka broda -> rodme'a
traji lo ka broda -> rodrai
mutce lo ka broda -> rodytce
milxe lo ka broda -> rodmli
cenba lo ka broda -> rodycne
zenba lo ka broda -> rodze'a
jdika lo ka broda -> rodjdika
and probably some more I'm forgetting.
I say "mutce broda", so "tcebroda".
I would say you are basically treating "mutce" as if it were in
selma'o NAhE instead of being a gismu with its own place structure.
Something like:
to'e broda -> tolbroda
na'e broda -> nalbroda
no'e broda -> norbroda
mutce broda -> tcebroda
milxe broda -> mlibroda
If you prefer "tcebroda" then presumably you should also prefer
"zmabroda" and "rairbroda", or if not why not?
If "broda" is intransitive, it doesn't make much difference. However, if it is
transitive, it can make a difference. For instance, mi neizma la bil. lo
frambesi (I like raspberries more than Bill does) .i mi zmanei lo frambesi lo
clazme (I like raspberries more than cucumbers).
Right, but why isn't there a difference in the case of "mutce"? Most
gismu are 'transitive', so if "xautce" means something like
"excellent" (mutce lo ka xamgu), would "tcexau" mean something like
"good for extremists" (xamgu lo mutce)? Or "good by extreme standards"
(xamgu fi lo mutce)?
If you say it simply means "mutce xamgu", which most often would be
understood in the sense of "mutce lo ka xamgu", then you are using a
different system for lujvo with "mutce" from the one you use for lujvo
with "zmadu" and "traji".