[lojban] non-clausal ke'a

[tijlan <jbotijlan@gmail.com>]

What could this mean:

[.i] mi ke'a citka

I suppose it's syntactically valid. But what relativised sumti could
it refer to? Would it make more sense if it followed another sentence:

mi viska lo plise .i mi ke'a citka

Could we say that this {mi ke'a citka} is a sentential expansion of a
clause that could describe {lo plise}, as in this:

mi viska lo plise poi mi ke'a citka

I'm asking this as I've been thinking about the difference between
"le/la/les" and "en" in French:

Je vois une pomme. Je la mange.
(I see an apple. I eat it.)
mi viska pa plise .i mi ri citka

Je vois des pommes. Je les mange.
(I see apples. I eat them.)
mi viska su'o plise .i mi ri citka

Je vois des pommes. J'en mange.
(I see apples. I eat "of them".)
mi viska su'o plise .i mi ___ citka

http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/en#French
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/French_personal_pronouns#The_pronoun_en

Would {ri/ra/ru} alone be an accurate translation of "en", which
differs from "le/la/les" in the referent's quantity (i.e. whereas "Je
la mange." means that the whole of the object is eaten, "J'en mange."
doesn't imply such an entirety)? My guess is that {su'o ri}, that is
{su'o su'o plise}, would be more accurate than a bare {ri}. But I also
vaguely feel that "en" might have something to do more with
relativising "ke'a" than with back-counting "ri/ra/ru" (or the lerfu
solution, for that matter -- "py" in this case).

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "lojban" group.
To post to this group, send email to lojban@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to lojban+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/lojban?hl=en.