[YG Conlang Archives] > [jboske group] > messages [Date Index] [Thread Index] >
la .and. cusku di'e
> Which reminds me, so-called "bound ka" privileges one particular
> sumti too, and binds it to a higher sumti.
If you mean one particular sumti of the ka-phrase, then that is not
necessarily true, given the possibly singular example of simxu.
> 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}.
>
> So arguably:
>
> la djan frica la meris lo'edu'u ke'a dunda fi makau
> John differs from Mary in who they give to.
>
> 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 think that 'ce'u' and 'makau' do different things, so even if you
replace the 'ce'u' with 'ke'a', you couldn't use 'ce'u' for 'makau'.
I'm not sure if this is what you were trying to suggest, but I think
it might be a good idea to use 'ke'a' where you want cobinding, and
'ce'u' when you want a new lambda variable. (Perhaps it would be
better to use 'ke'a' when there is only one mention of a variable, but
'ce'u' is still traditional and I don't think it makes a difference.)
Thus 'ka ce'u prami ce'u' would be (according to the current standard)
the relationship of loving, whereas 'ka le nu ke'a tatpi cu fanza
ke'a' would bind the ke'a to a single variable and mean 'the property
of being annoyed by the fact that one is tired'.
mu'o mi'e .adam.