Re: general response on needing books

[Chris Bogart <cbogart@QUETZAL.COM>]

>Maybe my definitions are not very good, but they mainly say that {nitcu}
>and {djica} are forms of {claxu} with more properties for x1.
>Does {claxu} suffer from illicit raising as well?

I think claxu has the same capacity for the transparent/opaque problem that
nitcu does.  But one could go further with your definitions and define
"claxu" as "na ponse" or something similar, and (re my previous posting) we
*have* a solution to the transparent/opaque distinction in the case of
negatives (at least when "da" is used: mi na ponse da vs. da na se ponse mi)
 ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
 Chris Bogart
 cbogart@quetzal.com
 ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~