[YG Conlang Archives] > [jboske group] > messages [Date Index] [Thread Index] >
pc:
> araizen@hidden.email writes:
>
> <<
>
> Having both 'me' and 'du' is probably redundant, but the relativized
> 'pe' (I suppose that that's the bridiized 'pe') is better handled with
> 'me ko'a moi', because it not only allows you to claim the association
> between two sumti, but also what the relationship is, if need be.
> (Though unfortunately 'meko'amoi' is often called an abomination for
> some reason.)
>
> >>
> "is an instance of it first"? I don't see any connection here with
> {pe}. Maybe {me le ko'a moi} (or as close to that as is
> grammatical), "is an instance of the itth" which makes a sort of
> sense if we can imagine sets of things ordered (somehow) by whose
> they are and then pick them out thus. But getting the "it" in seems a
> difficult thing to do: I can't find a cmavo that converts {k'o'a} or
> (my favorite) {mi} into something that parses before {moi}. Event
> the sumti-to-mex widgets won't quite encompass that one.
I remember xorxes discovering this weird locution. As you say,
the basic idea of "X's Y" being done as "the Xth Y" is an attractive
one, but I can't work out how {me ko'a moi} gets us to that meaning.
I'd have guessed it was {mo'e ko'a moi}. What's wrong with {mo'e
ko'a moi}? And how can {me ko'a moi} parse, given that {me ko'a}
is a selbri and {moi} requires somesort of MEX argument? (I know
this was explained first time round, but I can neither remember
nor guess what the explanation was.)
--And.