[YG Conlang Archives] > [jboske group] > messages [Date Index] [Thread Index] >
xorxes:
> la and cusku di'e
>
> > Is there anywhere in a lojban word string where {cu} could not
> > be replaced by {ja'a} without change of meaning?
>
> Besides the contrasting use of ja'a,
I am not very persuaded by John & Jordan's assertion that ja'a is
emphatic. Emphatic negation is {ba'e na}, so symmetry would mean
that emphatic affirmation is {ba'e ja'a}, not plain {ja'a}.
> I can think of one
> situation where their grammar is different: {bai ja'a broda}
> and {bai cu broda} parse differenly (any other tag will do
> instead of {bai}). {cu} forces a terminator {ku} after the
> tag, but {ja'a} doesn't. I'm not sure whether this ever
> produces a significant change of meaning, though. Maybe
> yes if {ba'oku} is like {ba'o zo'e} rather than like {ba'o broda}.
Good point.
How does {lenu broda ja'a brode} parse? As {lenu broda ja'a ku kei
cu brode}, or as {{lenu broda kei ku cu ja'a brode}? The latter looks
more intuitive, but the former is more consistent with the principle
of late closure.
--And.