Latest version of my kafybarja story

["Mark E. Shoulson" <shoulson@CTR.COLUMBIA.EDU>]

>From: Nick Nicholas <nsn@mullian.ee.Mu.OZ.AU>
>Date: Sun, 20 Dec 92 12:53:12 EST

>>.i lebi'u remna cu klama mo'ine'i ra
>>.i ko'a goi ra zutse ne'a lo jubme

>If the referent of this second {ra} is {lebi'u remna}, then the {ra}
>should be {ri}, as {rX} anaphora don't refer to other {rX} anaphora.

Er, no.  As I recall, ri/ra/ru words *are* anaphorable.  Ah.... here.
Lesson 6, page 6-10.  Hmmm... It *does* say that {ri} is anaphorable (10th
line from bottom), but doesn't say anything about the other words.
Nonetheless, it seems to me that they should be.  If you mean that one {r*}
can't refer to another, that also conflicts with usage, since very often
I've seen {ra} to point back a sumti or two, then that same {ra}
re-referenced with {ri}.

>>.i da poi prenu cu genai pinxe lei ckafi gi pencu le kabri gi'e
>>na djica tu'a lei ckafi ki'u loza'i na'e pe'ise'inai glare

>Hm. Doesn't the {na} negate the whole clause? "It is not true that (she
>wants the coffee because it's not hot enough, quotha)". I'd go either
>{na'e} or {gi'enai} to clean up this one. (Bandaid solution, I know.)

I thought {na} just negated the bridi-relation for the selbri it was on.

>>mi lebna lei ckafi gi'e na'o denpa fu'i so'e mentu tezu'e lenu lei ckafi
>>cu glaryri'a le kabri kei fo lenu krefu dunda lei naldrata ckafi

>Strictly speaking, {tu'a le ckafi}, but I still think the omission of {tu'a}
>here acceptable, as communicative.

Oops.

~mark