Subject: Re: paroi ro mentu [1]

From: "jjllambias2000" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 02 Oct 2002 23:52:40 -0000

la and cusku di'e

> If a feast lasts for seven days, it can be seen as happening on
> seven days. Analogously, if I line up a row of logs side by
> side and lie on them, I can be seen as lying on (or being
> located at) each of the logs.

I'd say {ze'a le djedi be li ze} or {ze'a lei ze djedi}
and {ve'a lei ze grana}.

Also {ca le ze djedi} and {bu'u le re grana} would work, yes.

But the sumti of {roi} is for the interval over which the
number of instances repeat, not for the duration of the event.

> > Certainly the more convenient one is the one that allows us to say
> > "x times per minute/hour/day/etc." directly. 
> 
> I agree, but my concern is that "I do it once per minute" does
> not mean "for every x that is a minute, I do it once". 

It does mean that, as long as we think of time as divided
into a series of minutes. It doesn't mean that if we allow
overlapping minutes, I agree. Is that the objection?

>Rather, it
> means, "for every x that is quantity of minutes and during which 
> I do it, x is a pa mei" or, better:
> ro da poi de ge mentu ke'a gi jai ca gasnu zo'u du li pa da

It doesn't mean that either, because if I do it once per
minute then there are for example many 1.5 minute intervals
in which I do it once. (There are other 1.5 minute intervals
in which I do it twice.)

(One minute is not the duration of each instance. It is the 
duration of the interval in which the n instances occur.)

> Can fi'o take a selbri with sumti, as in {fi'o [broda be ko'a] 
fo'a}?

Yes.

> If so, then you could formulate {roi} as {fi'o ra'inrapli be li pa
> fo'a}, and prove your point using that reformulation.

Yes, that's good, though I think I want to keep the quantifier
vis-a-vis the rest of the terms in the bridi.

mu'o mi'e xorxes