On Tuesday 26 April 2011 03:45:34 Matthew Walton wrote:
> On 26 April 2011 08:27, nilcefas <
nils.schaeffer@gmail.com> wrote:
> > ok, now that sounds more profound, i guess. but i'm not sure, if i get
> > it right:
> >
> > 1. what does {sagycku} in the first bridi mean? (where does the {cku}
> > come from?) wouldn't {sanga} suffice?
>
> I don't get that one either. Vlasisku thinks the second component of
> that lujvo is {cukta}. If you expand into a tanru it doesn't make much
> sense, although I suppose it could be a lujvo something like x1 sings
> work/words x2 but I'm not sure it's actually necessary to do it that
> way. Hopefully latros will clarify.