On Wed, May 22, 2013 at 12:15:17PM +0200, selpa'i wrote:
> {lo ka ta pelxu} is grammatical but makes no sense to said group of
> speakers because a {ka} abstraction must contain at least one
> {ce'u}. There is no obvious place to go for {ce'u} here, so it's not
> well-formed.
To me it's
{lo ka ta pelxu} => {lo ka ta pelxu ce'u}
"The property of being something that is related
to the statement that /that/(ta) is yellow"
As John said, this can mean quite a lot, so you shouldn't use it, right.
But it's still grammatical and should not be considered "ungrammatical"
on the same level as "li mi ku zbabu".
Anyway, could we please settle the problem I pointed out earlier
and fix the faulty wiki page. Either revert the change by xorxes
(I doubt that's going to happen) or update the text I quoted
to reflect the difference between {PA broda} and {PA lo broda}.
Honestly, I still don't get why the first one was decided to be
grammatical in the first place.. I don't really see any necessity
to have this, especially if it's not just a short hand.
mi'e la .van. mu'o
Attachment:
pgpXZVpj5vbOB.pgp
Description: PGP signature