[YG Conlang Archives] > [jboske group] > messages [Date Index] [Thread Index] >
On Sat, Dec 14, 2002 at 07:58:07PM -0000, And Rosta wrote:
> Jordan:
> > On Sat, Dec 14, 2002 at 03:41:03PM -0000, And Rosta wrote:
> > > Jordan:
> > [...]
> > > The main attraction of ke'a rather than ce'u is among those given
> > > on the poi'i wiki page: it allows a simple way to 'reflexives',
> > > since multiple ke'a corefer while multiple ce'u cannot corefer
> >
> > That's what nei is for:
> > mi ckaji leka ce'u citka le nei
>
> But once the two coreferential terms are not in the same bridi,
> it doesn't work, or at least not without cumbersome subscripting
> operating according to unofficial and unagreed conventions.
>
> Also, the meaning of {nei} has not been satisfactorily agreed
> on yet.
Well; there's also the ability to explicitly subscript: ce'u xi pa
is always the same.
If you're worried about length, go propose some da de di equivalents
for ce'u (cei'a cei'u cei'i?). Personally I don't see a need though:
99.9% of the time people use only 1 variable in a ka abstract, so
if you want a more complicated expression it's ok that you either
need to use different stuff (nei), or if it's nested by more than
one (no'a will work for 1) need to use subscripting.
--
Jordan DeLong - fracture@hidden.email
lu zo'o loi censa bakni cu terzba le zaltapla poi xagrai li'u
sei la mark. tuen. cusku
Attachment:
bin9mtp7Fx264.bin
Description: application/ygp-stripped