Re: Kau obverse

[jorge@PHYAST.PITT.EDU]

la djer cusku di'e

> >         mi djuno LE da kau klama le zarci
> >
> 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 think it still doesn't give you what you want. In that phrase, the x2
of djuno is being filled with {LE zarci bo klama}. {dakau} is an attachment
to it, just like {mi} in {le mi broda}. {dakau} is certainly not going into
the x1 of klama.

You can't have an indirect question unless it's within an abstraction, so
I don't think that you can force an object sumti and use an indirect question
at the same time.


> >         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 think he will agree.

(Also, in this example you are not using xa'a as a LE, {LE ru} is not
grammatical. I think that my original suggestion was that it would be a
LAhE, but you didn't like it, because you wanted it to absorb more than
one sumti at a time, if I recall.)

I find {mi selsau ko'a} a better translation of "I know him" than
{mi djuno fi ko'a}. Unfortunately, the verb "to know" in English has
these two meanings, and people like using {djuno} for both.


> >         , 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.

I already gave you my opinion. I don't dislike the idea of allowing what
xa'a would allow, but I don't see the need for the explicit marking.
Why signal that you will be using a concrete sumti, when the use itself
shows that you are using a concrete sumti?

Jorge