TECH: RE: do djica loi ckafi je'i tcati

[i.alexander.bra0125@OASIS.ICL.CO.UK]

la kris. bogart. cusku di'e
> Apparantly I was on vacation or simply not paying attention when this got
> resolved.  .u'u  Sorry.

No regrets necessary - I don't think we've got all the wrinkles out of
this yet.

la xorxes. cusku di'e
> On the other hand, it can be thought in a different way and it doesn't work.

> I'll change to {nitcu} instead of {djica} to avoid having to use {tu'a}.

Ummm... {nitcu} is one indication we haven't got all the answers yet.
Being _able_ to use {tu'a} gives us a way of making a distinction
which isn't easy otherwise.

> What is the meaning of: {mi nitcu lo tanxe}?

> Is it "I need something which is a box", or is it "there exists at least
> one box such that I need it"?

I believe it has to be the latter.

> > 9)      "do djica tu'a loi ckafi ji loi tcati lu'u"

> Well, I agree this is a solution, but I don't think it is the right general
> solution. In the case of {djica}, it would seem that {tu'a} has to be used
> anyway to avoid illegal sumti raising, so that the example is a bad one. When
> there is no sumti raising, e.g. {do nitcu lo tanxe ji lo dakli}, using {tu'a}
> seems wrong.

I look at it from the opposite point of view.  I took examples like these
as indications that there is some sumti raising going on.  But there's
a nagging suspicion at the back of my mind that this isn't the whole answer.

We have several gismu, one of whose places may need to be filled with
something of the form "any-old-<x>".  Last I remember, there were three
different styles of place definition for these - {sisku} takes a property,
{djica} takes an event, and {nitcu} takes a concrete sumti.  It could be
that all gismu of this type (and I'm not sure how you spot them all)
need to take an abstraction, at least as an option, in which case {tu'a}
works.  And in that case any such gismu which didn't allow an abstraction
would not be usable to express the any-old-<x> case.

Or maybe there's something else going on.  Natlangs seem to avoid the
issue, or use constructions like any-<x>-whatever to emphasise the point.
But I don't see how you carry that over into a logical language.

> {do nitcu lo tanxe ji'e dakli} may be all right, depending on
> what is the answer to my question above, but an appropriate sumti connective
> would be nice too.

> Since it would be very simple to allow BAIs to work like that (they're already
> allowed in forethought form, so why not in afterthought also?), I don't see
> any reason not to.

> At least {mau}, {me'a}, {du'i}, {li'e}, {pa'a}, {fa'e}, {ba'i} and {do'e} can
> be given good use in this function.

This appears to be off into hyperspace.  I hope I'm misunderstanding you.  :-)

mu'o mi'e .i,n.