Re: TECH: SE rafsi omitted in lujvo (was Re: dikyjvo, too,

[John Cowan <snark!cowan@GVLS1.VFL.PARAMAX.COM>]

la nitcion. cusku di'e

> Nice! Strictly speaking yes, though there is an escape hatch: a se le'avla
> (which is a se valsi, the le'avla meaning) is a selkemle'avla, and a se
> selyle'avla a selkemselyle'avla/selselyle'avla. This is fortunate, because
> the user may not realise (or agree) that le'avla is 'really' "short" for
> selyle'avla.

It is already established (but I forget where, and Nick should put it in
his paper) that "selsel-" means "se ke se", because "se se" is not useful.
Presumably this should apply to "ter-" and the other SE rafsi as well.

So the current state of things is this: omitted SE in the seltanru does not
affect the place structure (e.g. le'avla), whereas omitted SE in the tertanru
does affect it (e.g. xekskapi)?  If so, this too should be documented in
Nick's paper.  (Boy, I'm willing to make work for you.)

--
John Cowan      cowan@snark.thyrsus.com         ...!uunet!lock60!snark!cowan
                        e'osai ko sarji la lojban.