[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: [lojban] [oz] Use of elidable {cu}


On Mon, Jan 6, 2014 at 9:16 PM, Felipe Gonçalves Assis <felipeg.assis@gmail.com> wrote:
On 6 January 2014 20:36, Jorge Llambías <jjllambias@gmail.com> wrote:

   lo nu broda pu cinri
   ! "The event of brodaing in the past is interesting."

Actually it's even worse than that, it's just a sumti: "the brodaing in the past type of interesting thing." 

I just checked the parse. This completely breaks my mental grammar!

It's weird, I agree.

 
I feel that the natural place of tenses is just before the selbri, and anywhere else they ought to be followed by either a sumti or {ku}. It is so much simpler to add a {ku} whenever we want an out of place tense. I have little hope that the grammar be reviewed, but don't you feel the same?

I did propose once that tags should have priority in their function as selbri tags over their function as sumti tags. 
 
It only baffles me more that it works differently for negation.

That's because for some reason it was decided that the "ku" of "na ku" should never be elidable.

Am I safe to omit {cu} whenever there is a {na}?

If the selbri starts with "na", yes, but not if it's something like "pu na broda", then the "pu" might still get stolen by some subordinate bridi.

mu'o mi'e xorxes

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "lojban" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to lojban+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to lojban@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/lojban.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.