Re: meaning of bridi without tense markers (was Re: question

[Peter Moulder <reiter@netspace.net.au>]

la robin. cusku di'e

On Sun, 26 Sep 1999, Robin Turner wrote:

> la pityr. cusku di'e

> > Are we saying "some X, TimeSet: ninmu(X, TimeSet) & nanmu(X, TimeSet),
> > or are we merely saying "some X, TimeSet1, TimeSet2: ninmu(X,
> > TimeSet1) & nanmu(X, TimeSet2)"?
 
> I think semantically {lo ninmu cu nanmu} is posssible (under your second
> interprtation.  Pragmatically, it stinks, unless _very_ well supported by
> context, so the listener can fill it out, for example
> 
> lo ninmu pu nanmu
> lo ninmu ba nanmu
> lo ninmu cu binxo nanmu

Or indeed "lo [pu] ninmu ca nanmu".

Yes, I think you're right (on both counts :) ).

Only today/yesterday did I notice an example in the reference grammar that
uses a tense marker between "lo" and its selbri.

I would guess from the fact that tense markers are possible between "lo"
and its selbri indicates that the meaning of "lo P" without any tense
marker on P has the same tense connotations as "da cu P", i.e. the tense
under which P is true is simply unspecified.

So AFAICT, "lo P cu Q" means exactly the same as "lo Q cu P";
both mean "some X, Tense1, Tense2: P(X, Tense1) & Q(X, Tense2)".

co'o mi'e pityr.