On Sun, Jan 30, 2011 at 11:50 PM, Ross Ogilvie
<oges007@gmail.com> wrote:
I
would note that the second example you gave is already gramatical, but
it assigns that particular nu construction to { brode }.
Yes, which is not what I wanted to do. I wanted to store {[ko'a] broda [ko'e] [ko'i]} in {brode}, not {nu ko'a broda ko'e ko'i} in {brode}. This does demonstrate that this breaks backwards compatibility (which I didn't expect) to some extent, since any NU BRIDI VAU CEI construct would now have an entirely different meaning. Are there any other constructs whose meaning this would change?
2011/1/31 Jorge Llambías
<jjllambias@gmail.com>
"cei" assigns a selbri, not a whole bridi. It is only a matter of
context that if you don't explicitely fill the arguments of the
assigned "broda", the obvious values will tend to be those used in the
bridi where you made the assignment.
True, but it is useful to think about it the other way, because that is really what offers a lot of the compactness; simply storing a selbri and then refilling all its arguments doesn't save as much space unless you're using a massive lujvo or tanru. (By contrast, KOhA storage is useful for ambiguity resolution alone in addition to brevity, since {lo broda} needn't be the same thing from one sentence to the next.)
That could be added to the grammar, but what you are assigning to
brode is "broda" (assuming "broda" already has a value).
Which is what I wanted to do.
mu'o mi'e .latros.