nu converts a bridi into a selbri. If you want to then convert it to a sumti, you need to put a lo (or a le, etc) in front of it. And that's the crux of your whole problem. That IS what you wanted to do in your original sentence, because the argument for a "ca" is a single sumti (unless you are using a ca as a tense for the whole bridi, in which case it goes right before the main slebri, or "caku" elsewhere within the main bridi). So what you wanted was, as Luke said, "lo bebna po'o cu cmila ca lo nu lo damba cu mrobi'o"
lo bebna -> A fool (the x1 of cmila)
po'o -> , only
cmila -> laughs
ca -> at the time of
lo nu (lo damba cu mrobri'o) -> an event of (a fighter dies)
Of course, "ca" can be followed by any sumti, although not all will make sense. "ca lo dunra" -> in winter.
Now, you may ask, under what circumstances would you use "nu" as a selbri? Well, here's an example.
mi pacna lo mutce jundi nu pilno zo nu kei ba ti
I hope for a more attentive use of "nu" after this
:-)
--gejyspa
On Mon, Aug 8, 2011 at 2:36 PM, MorphemeAddict
<lytlesw@gmail.com> wrote:
On Mon, Aug 8, 2011 at 12:58 PM, Michael Turniansky
<mturniansky@gmail.com> wrote:
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.
{smila [sic: cmila] nu} is a selbri? I thought {nu} was part of the following structure, which in {smila nu} is missing.
stevo
--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.
--
--