On 27 May 2013 16:40, la arxokuna <
gleki.is.my.name@gmail.com> wrote:
> However, I'm not sure what {lo .paris.} would mean under this proposal.
>
> If cmevla as brivla are considered as names then lo .paris. = la .paris.
>
> If cmevla is a new class of verbs/content words/predicates (whatever you call it) that's another story.
{lo .paris.} would mean the first place of {.paris.} as a selbri. {.paris.} would have such a definition as
x1 me lo se cmene be zo .paris.
, and {lo} would be pulling its x1 out. It's functionally a description sumti like {lo fraso}, not a name sumti (cmene) like {la fraso}. {lo .paris.} and {la .paris.} would mean effectively the same, but by different mechanisms.
Cmevla & brivla could still be morphologically distinct, but syntactically unified under "selbri" or "tanru-unit" (along also with GOhA, NU sentence KEI, etc.). I'm not sure about calling it "cmevla as a class of brivla". The key criteria of traditional brivla are:
- having a place structure
- having a consonant cluster
- ending with a vowel
If cmevla were to be a class of (a subset of) brivla, we'd have to get rid of the second and third rules, but that would leave the door open also to cmavo with a place structure such as {du}.