Subject: li'i (was: Another stab at a Record on ce'u

From: Invent Yourself <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 29 Aug 2001 20:14:03 -0400 (EDT)

On Thu, 30 Aug 2001, And Rosta wrote:

> Xod:
> > On Wed, 29 Aug 2001, And Rosta wrote:
> >
> > > > i. ce'u makes sense in li'i as well as du'u and ka.
> > >
> > > Actually, I don't think so. Does "li'i da -rain" [bugger. tip of the
> > > tongue. carmi?cevni? no] (= experience of it raining) make sense. I
> > > think it does. So I think "experience of having legs" is NOT
> > > "li'i ce'u se tuple" but rather "li'i le se NO'AU se tuple", where
> > > NO'AU = next outer phrase (regardless of whether it is a bridi) = a
> > > sibling of NO'A.
> >
> > li'i ce'u klama
> > experience of going
> >
> > li'i ce'u xelklama
> > experience of being a vehicle
> >
> > etc.
>
> But what sort of thing is ce'u in this construction. It seems nothing
> more than a variable bound to x2 of li'i. That's not at all what ce'u
> in ka or si'o or du'u is. So I'd change your examples to:

What is the big difference you see between si'o2 and li'i2?

-----
"It is not enough that an article is new and useful. The Constitution
never sanctioned the patenting of gadgets. [...] It was never the object
of those laws to grant a monopoly for every trifling device, every
shadow of a shade of an idea, which would naturally and spontaneously
occur to any skilled mechanic or operator in the ordinary progress of
manufactures." -- Supreme Court Justice Douglas, 1950