[YG Conlang Archives] > [jboske group] > messages [Date Index] [Thread Index] >
la and cusku di'e
1 {du'u2 ce'u broda} = x1 is the property of being broda
2 {du'u2 ce'u broda ce'u} = x1 is the broda relation
3 {du'u1 ce'u broda} = {du'u ma kau broda}
= x1 is a (true) completion to {du'u2 ce'u broda}
I conclude that {du'u1} and {du'u2} should be expressible by different
cmavo. {du'u1} is the one that deviates from current Lojban, so
would call for an experimental cmavo ({du'au}, say), if only in order
to allow for a lexicosyntactic form that is closer to logical form.
So how about when ce'u and qkau combine? E.g.
4 mi se cfila loi du'u ce'u prami ma kau
"Who I love is a flaw in me"
5 {mi se cfila loi du'au ce'u goi ko'a zo'u jetnu
fa lo'e du'u ce'u prami ko'a}
Don't you mean:mi se cfila loi du'u ce'u goi ko'a zo'u jetnu fa lo'e du'au ko'a prami ce'u
The thing in x1 of jetnu has to be completion, not a property. The thing in x1 of cfila has to be a property, not a completion. And thing in x2 of cfila has to be the one in x1 of prami, and the holder of the property in x1 of cfila. mu'o mi'e xorxes _________________________________________________________________Surf the Web without missing calls!�Get MSN Broadband. http://resourcecenter.msn.com/access/plans/freeactivation.asp