[YG Conlang Archives] > [jboske group] > messages [Date Index] [Thread Index] >
On Tue, 17 Dec 2002, John Cowan wrote: > Invent Yourself scripsit: > > > > "ka mi xunre" is precisely the same as "du'u mi xunre", because > > > there's no places for ce'u to go (it would normally be "ka mi xunre > > > ce'u" but there is no x2 for xunre). > > > > You can't trick me into defending ce'u-less ka! But this is not how it > was > > interpreted the CLL, or the older generations who liked it. > > As the author of CLL, I certainly had the ce'u-less ka = du'u concept in > mind, even if I didn't spell it out. I think only Bob objects to this, > and his objection is of the form "I can't be sure it's always true". Yes, Bob is who I had in mind when I wrote this. I remember him arguing against the necessity of ce'u, because he had his own interpretation of it, and it wasn't du'u. I don't have the book here, but are you quite sure the chapter on ka doesn't give an example or 2 of ce'u-less ka that's not equivalent to a du'u? -- // if (!terrorist) // ignore (); // else collect_data ();