la .xorxes. cu cusku di'e
What was it in English? I thought it would be something like "I'll do
all I can for you" rather than "I'll make sure everything that can be
done for you gets done".
You're right, it's "I'll ask Oz to do all he can for you".
But don't you think it actually results in the same claim? Doing all he can can include zukte lo ka gasnu as well, so the question is just whether or not to have it as the main selbri. I'm not too attached to the way it currently stands, nor do I have any strong preference for either sentence, but I see no problem at all with the {gasnu lo jai se kakne} version.
What things can {se kakne}? Properties.In any case, I'm just not too happy with "jai". The way I understand it,
it is used for sumti raising, i.e. extract an argument from a
subordinate bridi in the x1 of a selbri and raise it to become the first
argument of the selbri. Here you seem to use it to create an event out
of a property?
What things can {jai se kakne}? Everything, including events. All we know is that it appears somewhere inside the abstraction (X jai se kakne ~= kakne lo ka co'e X (what's actually happening in the abstraction is {fai}'s job to specify)).
Thus, a {jai se kakne} can {se gasnu}.
ro da ka'e jai se kakne
lo se gasnu ka'e jai se kakne
lo jai se kakne ka'e se gasnu
la .oz. cu gasnu lo jai se kakne
Because they are both events.