* Saturday, 2011-10-29 at 17:56 -0300 - Jorge Llambías <jjllambias@gmail.com>:
> On Sat, Oct 29, 2011 at 11:59 AM, Martin Bays <mbays@sdf.org> wrote:
> > * Saturday, 2011-10-29 at 10:55 -0300 - Jorge Llambías <jjllambias@gmail.com>:
> >> ca lo djedi lo mamta remna cu kansa lo re panzi be ri be'o no'u la
> >> .mupl. jo'u la .kles.
> >
> > Off-topic, but why {jo'u} rather than {joi}? Do you have a theory of
> > what the difference between those words is?
>
> jo'u -> lo [re]
> joi -> loi [re]
>
> The difference between jo'u and joi is parallel to whatever difference
> there is between lo and loi.
Which you're still expecting to be something-or-other to do with
distributivity?
> .e -> ro [lo re]
> .a -> su'o [lo re]
> na.enai -> no [lo re]
> na.anai -> me'i [lo re]
> .onai -> pa [lo re]
> .o -> (vei) no .a ro [lo re]
Agreed.
> > I was kind of thinking that {jo'u} should work like {e}, but be
> > processed only after everything else so it has "innermost scope";
> > e.g. {broda ko'a jo'u ko'e ro brode} == {broda ro brode ko'a .e ko'e}.
> >
> > But that doesn't fit with how you just used it.
>
> No, I don't think "jo'u" is necessarily distributive.
OK. If it does end up being that no coherent lo/loi-like distinction
between jo'u and joi can be found, though, I do think this would be
a good use for {jo'u}.
> >> .i ca bo viska lo cinfo noi darno .i la .mupl.
> >> jo'u la .kles. no roi pu viska lo cinfo gi'e djica lo nu klama ri gi'e
> >> kelci .i ku'i lo mamta remna cu jungau ra lo du'u lo cinfo cu ckape .e
> >> lo du'u .ei no roi klama lo jibni be ri .i ca lo bavlamdei ca lo nu lo
> >> mamta remna vu crepu lo grute kei la .kles. cu viska da noi ca'o
> >> jbibi'o gi'e cusku lu ju'i .mupl. lo cinfo za'u re'u zvati .i .e'u
> >> mi'o cliva li'u .i ku'i la .mupl. cu cmila gi'e cusku lu doi bebna tu
> >> na cinfo .i mi pu viska lo nu lo pilba'a cu jadni lo sedycra be lo
> >> cinfo
> >
> > Yes, that's just the sad kind of error you're likely to make if you
> > aren't taught about individuals... he thinks that just because {lo cinfo
> > cu broda}, it follows that {ro na broda na ku cinfo} - which is valid if
> > {pa da cinfo} (which his kindly mother presumably taught him), modulo
> > complicated tense issues he can be forgiven for overlooking.
>
> My theory is that when the mother told him ".ei ko no roi klama lo
> jibni be ri" he was unable to identify a wide enough referent for
> "ri", perhaps because he had his mind too set on mundanes.
Well, she should have been clearer.
We need her to be able to be clearer.
Martin
Attachment:
pgpGWdvZQa3xW.pgp
Description: PGP signature