[YG Conlang Archives] > [jboske group] > messages [Date Index] [Thread Index] >
pc:
> a.rosta@hidden.email writes:
> . JCB had it right
> > originally and it was foolish (not to mention superfluous) to have
> > changed it. {me} should be the brivla relativized in {pe}, as intended.
> >
> > (Maybe I should quit bitching and just invent a new -- longer --
> > cmavo for the purpose:
> > {pe'e'e} sounds to me like "posesses" (with a bad lisp)
>
> In this particular instance, though, we don't need a cmavo -- a
> lujvo would do. (Same goes for my construal of {me}, too.)
>
> >>
>
> Namely?
For some reason mail in the last couple of days has been badly out of
sync (at least when it reaches me). I had just sent a message
outlining my construal of {me}, in terms of haecceities/seities
and quiddities. I won't repeat it, because I presume it will turn
up somewhere down the line.
--And.