[YG Conlang Archives] > [jboske group] > messages [Date Index] [Thread Index] >
(I'm apologize if any of what I'm about to say was dealt with in the
recent discussion on this subject; I think I read most of the relevant
messages, but might have missed some.)
la xorxes. cusku di'e
> So we have defined {lo'e broda} when it appears in the x2 of
> {buska}. To generalize for any context {brode lo'e broda}, we
> need a predicate that is to {brode} as {sisku} is to {buska}.
> This protopredicate is simply {kairbrode}. It takes a property
> in x2 instead of the x2 of brode.
The problem I see with these 'kairbroda's is that, while they are
seljvajvo, their gismu deep structure is 'xy.1 brode lo'e ckaji be
xy.2', and so this definition of 'lo'e' is circular. I think that the
gadri for 'ckaji' here must by lo'e/le'e, otherwise you will end up
claiming that the x2 exists.
I am not sure if you are still going by the zi'o/zu'i story, but here
are my observations on it. Originally you claimed that 'lo'e' is like
'zi'o', but with content, and then you later claimed that 'zu'i' is
the contentless 'lo'e' (i.e. lo'e's da), so zu'i ends up being equal
to zi'o. I would be at least hesitant about that conclusion. Did you
intend that they be equal?
mu'o mi'e .adam.