On Sat, Aug 6, 2011 at 2:55 PM, MorphemeAddict
<lytlesw@gmail.com> wrote:
Here are the definitions of PU that I have:
ba = after time tense relation/direction: will [selbri]; after [sumti]; default future tense
ca = during time tense relation/direction: is [selbri]; during / simultaneous with [sumti]; present tense
pu = before time tense relation/direction: did [selbri]; before/prior to [sumti]; default past tense
Each can be used with either a selbri or a sumti. I don't know if they can be used without either: {mi ca gleki} (with selbri) vs. {mi gleki ca} (with neither selbri nor sumti). With sumti: {mi gleki ca lo nu do zvati ti}.
Yes, but you used it in the MIDDLE of the selbri "smila nu", where it may not go.
--gejyspa
stevo
On Sat, Aug 6, 2011 at 8:06 AM, Pierre Abbat
<phma@phma.optus.nu> wrote:
On Saturday 06 August 2011 00:29:31 MorphemeAddict wrote:
> If one can say {mi ca cmila}, then {mi ca nu cmila} should also be
> grammatical, even if it doesn't make a lot of sense. I thought TAGs could
> be put just about anywhere, and that they don't have any
> requirements/arguments/expectations.
"mi cmila nu damba" is grammatical, but "mi cmila ca nu damba" is not. You
can't have a tense marker on the second part of a tanru.
Is there a TAG here somewhere? I don't see one. Or I don't remember what a TAG is.
stevo
Pierre
--
La sal en el mar es más que en la sangre.
Le sel dans la mer est plus que dans le sang.
--