On Sunday, August 5, 2012 4:38:29 AM UTC-5, iesk wrote:I tend to think that {broda fa ko'a fa ko'e} means more or less the same thing as {ko'a broda .i ko'e broda},
This is also what I was imagining at first, but I didn't realize it until you said it. It occurs to me that this would probably be the most easily acceptable interpretation for dealing with the problems I brought up (i.e. how it interrelates with {be} and GOhA usage) as it leaves it up to context what relationship there is between the two statements, if any. In the case of GOhA, it would generally be an overwrite of the previous, implying some form of correction. In the case of {be} and double-FA, I think it's a somewhat silly usage, but it could make sense.
Personally, I find the pure "erasure" sort of usage to be very useful, and any other kind of... weak. I also think logical connective implications would be explicitly wrong, as those feel completely against the GOhA overwrite usage, and it would only be a very small shortcut to far more confusing statements that are already expressible.
mu'o mi'e djos