|
On 1/8/21 1:17 PM, Corbin Simpson
wrote:
I think I recall (the?) one time I felt a use for {bu'a}, but I did have to have it explained to me that {ro bu'a zo'u} doesn't mean "for all things that bu'a" but rather "for all predicates bu'a," which is an exception to the usual rules—precisely because otherwise it's hard to use {bu'a}!
Esther 8:1: "For she (Esther) had told him (Ahasuerus) what he (Mordecai) was to her [viz. her cousin]"
.i .ebu pu cusku fi .abu fe lo du'u my bu'akau .ebu
I guess it doesn't need the quantification after all (this originally occurred to me before the invention of {kau}, I think.) Does there need to be some quantification anyway, though? To mean some particular implied (ellipsized) relationship, and not some random one like {viska} or {te djuno} or something?
~mark 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 view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/lojban/b11c8380-e0e5-b4bd-6f35-fcbc1b1364e9%40kli.org. |