* Tuesday, 2014-10-28 at 16:32 +0100 - Ilmen <ilmen.pokebip@gmail.com>:
> On 28/10/2014 03:42, Martin Bays wrote:
> A sumtcita ↔ bridi relative clause conversion table could look like the
> below:
>
> SE ba X = xoi ke'a SE balvi X vau
> se pi'o X = xoi X se pilno fi ke'a vau
> SE ka'a X = xoi fasnu fa ke'a jo'u lo nu X SE klama vau
> fau X = xoi fasnu fa ke'a jo'u X vau
> (Here {ke'a} stands for the outer bridi.)
I don't think it's clear that every tag permits such a definition.
e.g. I don't think {no roi} does.
> Furthermore, {ba} and {pu} are irregular sumtcita, in that their
> underlying predicate is inversed when they're used with {bo}:
> • { brode .ije *ba bo* brodo } = { brode .ije *ba* lo nu go'i cu brodo
> } (irregular ba/pu sumtcita)
> • { brode .ije *ki'u bo* brodo } = { brode .ije *se ki'u* lo nu go'i cu
> brodo } (regular sumtcita)
(I don't agree that these are literally equivalences, but probably you
didn't mean to claim that.)
Isn't the difference you're highlighting just the (annoying!) difference
between tenses and other tags in afterthought?
Martin
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature