Re: le la vei,on ckafyzda srinuntroci xipa

[CJ FINE <cbmvax!uunet!bradford.ac.uk!C.J.Fine>]

Mark to Veijo:

> I might have thought {dinju} would be a better choice.  {zdani} implies
> some sort of dwelling-place, and you're leading into this with these
> observatives as "A house.  A coffee-house...", where habitation isn't
> implied.  For that matter, is {ckafyzda} malglico?  It expands to {ckafi
> zdani} == "coffee-ish nest/house/bivouac/dwelling-place".  Most coffehouses
> aren't inhabited by anyone, they're solely places of business.
> {ckafyzarci} implies a more of a store where you buy coffee beans to me, so
> that's no better, and {ckafybriju} is right out.  Aha!  {ckafybarja}!
> That's really *much* better, I think.  {barja} even has a place for what's
> served, which is filled, in the lujvo/tanru, by {ckafi} (though other
> things may be served as well).  I think this is an important change to
> make, even if {ckafyzda} has acquired some sacredness.  It's only a week or
> two old, and it's broken.  Please let us switch to {ckafybarja}.

.ieje'u
>
> >.i mi ca ze'upu.oi na'e sumne da
>
> I'm always a little fuzzy with tenses... "I now (a-long-time-interval
> past)"..?  Oh, "it's now a long time that..."  Hrrrm.  I let John Cowan be
> the judge of that, if he gets a free moment.  I believe, though, that {da}
> gets unbound between sentences (except at ijeks), so you should either have
> an {.ije} there or use some other sort of anaphora to get the smell.  You
> could probably just ellipsize it entirely and get the meaning across fine.

I think you're right. I think the tense is OK.

> >.i vrici slada'i noi mi na djuno zo'e ke'a
>
> *sigh*.  This is such a common mistake something should be done.  A selbri
> can't take {noi}.  You can't use it this way in an observative.  Use {gi'e}
> or something.

Yes, it is common, isn't it? When I was playing about with the proposals
which eventually engendered Change 20, I was exploring an argument which
said that relatives should be able to be incorporated into a selbri,
along with an idea for preposing both relatives and linkargs there ....
(I didn't mention it because 1) I wasn't sure I could make it work, 2) I
didn't know what to do about "pe/ne" used crucially to attach to a
sumti, 3) I didn't want to give Bob apoplexy.)

>
> >.i ji'ipano zutse remna
>
> This is fine, but you should realize that it's not quite the same as the
> previous observatives.  Observatives are sentences with selbri but no sumti
> (or at least no x1 sumti).  The x1 is considered to be ellipsized, so
> "jubme" is "(something unspecified) is a table".  This is a sumti with no
> selbri, since it's quantified, and would likely be interpreted as "about 10
> sitting people (do/are something unspecified)", which to me has a slightly
> different meaning.
Nice point. For consistency, ".i zutse remna ji'ipanomei" or
".i zutse remna selkancu fili ji'ipano", or else
".i kancu le zutse remna li ji'ipano" (I rather like this one)
>
> >.i patxu loi ckafi lei mudri
I don't get Veijo's answer to my question here, so probably he didn't
understand my question. I was querying "lei" as opposed to "loi".

	Colin