|
Am 04.10.2012 09:34, schrieb la
gleki:
So I have to translate this for you, but you don't like how it works? I'm not sure you can properly judge it then.
The normal way uses an infinitive compound: ^:i \ji /daw crw \xo plyw But you can also use an explicit infinitive: ^:i \ji /daw \vo crw \xo plyw
^:i \ji /gu pli \ju ^vo crw \xo plyw or ^:i \ji ^ju /gu pli \crw \xo plyw
I'm not sure how to answer that question. You can say that ka is du'u ce'u, I don't know what the advantage is in defining ka in terms of su'u, because to me su'u could then mean nu or ni, which means that ka could become nu ce'u or ni ce'u. So why not use a more precise abstractor? Also, what is the point anyway? ka has at least one ce'u in it, that's pretty clear to almost everyone. Why do you need to use su'u here? mu'o mi'e la selpa'i -- pilno zo le xu .i lo dei bangu cu se cmene zo lojbo .e nai zo lejbo doị mèlbi mlenì'u .i do càtlu ki'u ma fe la xàmpre ŭu .i do tìnsa càrmi gi'e sìrji se tàrmi .i taị bo pu cìtka lo gràna ku-- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "lojban" group. To post to this group, send email to lojban@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to lojban+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/lojban?hl=en. |