[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: paroi ro mentu
la pycyn cusku di'e
> <<
> > le plini cu mulcarna paroi ro mentu
> >
> > 1- Is {mulcarna} good for "x1 makes a full turn around x2
> > in direction x3"?
> >>
> I tend to see what something takes a turn around as a center rather
than an
> axis, which {carna} seems to require -- is this a legitimate
extension?
I meant a full rotation around its axis, yes.
(How would we talk about a revolution around another body?)
> <<
> 2- The problem with {paroi ro mentu} is that the quantifiers
> are in the wrong order. The alternative {ro da poi mentu zo'u
> le plini cu mulcarna paroi da} is too longwinded and requires
> forethought. Any ideas?
> >>
> Why doesn't this mean "the planet makes a full turn around all
minutes once,"
> i.e., why isn't {ro mentu} x2?
{paroi} is a tag, so it tags the following sumti.
> {paroi} seems to be a free modifier so has
> at most rhetorical effect on its neighbors and there is nothing in
CLL or the
> cmavo list to suggest that {PAroi} takes a sumti to indicate the
span within
> which the repetitions are counted (though maybe it should).
Actually, it does. It even has an example (pg 233): {mi klama
le zarci reroi le ca djedi}, "I go to the market twice today".
> Maybe something like {ca ro mentu le plini paroi mulcarna}, though
I'd be
> happier with something more intervally than {ca} -- can {ze'e} be
used in
> that way (there used to be something like {ci'a}, but that may be
all th way
> back to Loglan.
The tense can't tag the selbri, otherwise the scope is still
wrong. I suppose {le plini cu mulcarna ze'a ro mentu paroiku}
does work. It is still very tempting to just say {paroi ro mentu}
though. Could we say that the tagged sumti's quantifier has
scope over the tag's quantifier?
mu'o mi'e xorxes