On Thu, Dec 3, 2009 at 7:27 PM, Daniel Brockman <
dbrockman@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Assuming that we do want separate terms, though, and that we want
> {bridi} to be about the predication rather than the text, --- do you
> have any thoughts or opinions about how we could, would, or should
> refer to the parts of speech? I sketched up a kind of ad-hoc system
> based on -pau --- any comments on that?
plus the honorary selma'o BRIVLA and CMEVLA.
I prefer to think of things like sumti, selbri, bridi, relative
clause, prenex, etc as structures in themselves rather than as parts
of something else, so maybe "stura" rather than "pagbu". I guess the
technical term is "phrase".
> Hmm, {sumti} has a very analoguous problem. The gimste says (even
> more explicitly than in the case of {bridi}) that sumti1 and sumti2
> are both text.
Which doesn't make a lot of sense. If "lo mlatu" is a sumti, what are
its selsumti and its tersumti?
> Would you prefer sumti1 to be lo cmima be bridi3 and
> sumti2 to be bridi2? I would, I think (for symmetry with {bridi}, if
> nothing else).
Right.
> On the other hand, the word words --- like {gismu}, {cmavo}, {lujvo},
> etc. --- don't really have this problem. At least not to this severe
> degree.
I don't really know what to make of the x3 of gismu and lujvo, or the
x4 of lujvo.
> What other grammar words do we have?
lerfu, slaka, rafsi, gadri, tanru, valsi, jufra
There may be some more I'm forgetting.
mu'o mi'e xorxes