[YG Conlang Archives] > [jboske group] > messages [Date Index] [Thread Index] >
la and cusku di'e
Xorxes uses {ce'u} within {poi'i} bridi, but I prefer {ke'a}.
This is because (i) in {poi'i} bridi (as also in NOI bridi),
one particular sumti is privileged and 'bound' to x1 of
poi'i, and (ii) in {ce'u broda ce'u}, the two ce'u are not
cobound, while in {ke'a broda ke'a} the two ke'a are
cobound.
I'm persuaded by the second argument.
Which reminds me, so-called "bound ka" privileges one particular
sumti too, and binds it to a higher sumti. So the logic of the
previous paragraph is that where a sumti can only be a single-
ce'u ka (= property) and not a many-ce'u ka (= relation), and
when the ce'u is bound to a sister sumti of the ka sumti, then
{ke'a} should be used instead of {ce'u}.
It might be argued that the binding in those cases is more semantic than syntactic. In the case of poi/poi'i the binding can be read off from the syntactic structure. In the case of ka, it is only the sense of the selbri that creates the binding. But it is an interesting idea nontheless.
So arguably:
la djan frica la meris lo'edu'u ke'a dunda fi makau
John differs from Mary in who they give to.
That's what I used when {ce'u} had not been invented.
or even
la djan frica la meris lo'edu'u ke'a dunda fi ce'u
John differs from Mary in who they give to.
I don't like this one. For me the completion provided by {kau}
is necessary. Besides, you couldn't do:
la djan frica la meris lo'edu'u ce'u dunda xokau da
John differs from Mary in how many things they give.
I'm conscious that people other than Xorxes might not get what I'm on about here, but fatigue prevents me from essaying a longer explantion tonight -- but I will do so another day if asked.
I'm sure I'm not the only one. mu'o mi'e xorxes _________________________________________________________________ Chat with friends online, try MSN Messenger: http://messenger.msn.com