Kau obverse

[Gerald Koenig <jlk@NETCOM.COM>]

xorxes pu cusku
la djer cusku di'e

>         mi djuno LE da kau klama le zarci
>
>         pleases the parser which sees {da kau klama le zarci} as one
>         sumti. Xa'a would just substitute for the LE.

That pleases the parser, but not in the way you suggest.

        You're right, I missed a curly bracket. I hope you're not
        missing my point though. Here is a revised example which shows
        how xa'a can be substituted for LE and make grammatical the use of a
        concrete sumti in a place reserved for abstractions.


        (mi {djuno <[LE ({da kau} {zarci bo klama}) KU] VAU>})
                         <--scope of le or xa'a-- >



>         I definitely want the kau if it means "who".

        I found your comments on kau most enlightening.

>         Alas, poor Yorik, I knew him well.
> xorxes: uu la iorik .i mi ri selsau
> djer:   uu la iorik .i mi rai pu djuno fi *xa'a ru

You don't need your xa'a for the x3 of djuno, it already accepts objects.

        I'd have to hear from lojbab on this.

I see a difference between {mi selsau ra} = "I know him well" and
{mi rai djuno fi ra} = "I know well something about him".

But both are acceptable. What are the nuances of one or the other will
only be determined by usage.

        This is true if x3 djuno accepts objects.  If not the
        prohibition on sumti raising will prevent a trial by usage.
        The same is true of many other selbri.


>         I said I rested my case on xa'a, the language shifter cmavo.
>         It now appears to me that in spite of my efforts it is not
>         understood, and may even have made the infamous xorxes hit
>         list.

Now, where is the {ke} in that last tanru?  :)

        If you support xa'a:  infamous (xorxes-hit-list).
        If you oppose xa'a:   infamous xorxes (hit-list).
        It's a consensus grammar rule.


Jorge
djer