>> So instead of "la prna le li ckli nlceki mstake" we can say "la je
>> prna ni'u li ckli nlcaki msta", which uses one fewer variable, but
>> also we can say "la je frmra je se xsle pnsake ni'u drxake msta",
>> "farmers who own some donkey and DO beat it are most (of the farmers
>> who own some donkey whether they beat it or not)", which doesn't have
>> a "mstake" form without repetition.
>
> Or possibly "la je frmra se xsle pnsake (ni) lo drxoke mstako"? I am not
> sure that removing the second argument from "mstako" is an advantage over
> having a donkey anaphor. The former seems more crucial to the meaning.
Sorry about that, as pc pointed out, it should have been "la je frmra
se xsle je pnsake ni'u drxake msta". It's not supposed to contain any
donkey anaphor.
"Farmers that for some donkey they own and DO beat are most (of
them)", where "them" is "Farmers that for some donkey they own whether
or not they beat".
> Yes, "ni'u" clearly works as a focus marker, but I am uncertain as to the
> reason not to just use "ni". "ni" is a particle that could use the extra
> duty to help justify its brevity, and it seems perfectly ready-made for that
> duty.
I don't have a problem with that, but I don't think it covers the
original purpose of "ni'u".
co ma'a xrxe