From jjllambias@xxxxxxx.xxxx Thu Nov 11 15:29:45 1999
X-Digest-Num: 281
Message-ID: <44114.281.1570.959273825@eGroups.com>
Date: Thu, 11 Nov 1999 15:29:45 PST
From: "Jorge Llambias" <jjllambias@xxxxxxx.xxxx
Subject: Re: gasnu


la pycyn cusku di'e

>I am not sure that x3 of mukti is the agent in x2; that would be
>redundant, or another version of subject-raising, like English
>for-to. Having it refer to the person whose will directs the
>motivation would give it a more independent status, even if still
>perhaps technically redundant

But in some cases there in no will directing the motivation:

le nu carvi cu mukti le nu la djan ckana stali
The raining motivates John to stay in bed.

We don't want to imply that there's someone's will involved
in the raining, I think.

...
>Here it does not matter (yet, at least) what John did, let
>alone what what John did did. In short, I would use subject raing only 
>when
>it is required grammatically, not conceptually -- unless there was some 
>point I really wanted to make with it.

Excellent! I was never sure when the chain of abstractions
starts or ends, so it didn't make much sense to say that
in some cases it was obligatory to use tu'a and in others
wasn't. Thanks for your explanation.

co'o mi'e xorxes