Re: do djica loi ckafi je'i tcati

[Jorge Llambias <jorge@PHYAST.PITT.EDU>]

la djer cusku di'e

> Well, here goes my try:
>
> i. mi nitcu le su'u me le tanxe me'u da kei
>
> What this means to me is:  I need the (in-mind) abstraction  of boxing
> up (something that exists).  If you don't want to make "things" existent
> you could use zo'e in place of da. If su'u is too nonspecific you could
> use ka or nu as you suggested.
>
> I still have a lot of doubt as to what "me" actually does.  By definition
> it turns a sumti (here, le tanxe) into a selbri.  But what exactly the
> x1 and x2 of the resulting selbri are is unclear to me.

It is not terribly clear to me either, but {me} doesn't turn "the box"
into "to box". This is the definition of {me} from the cmavo list:

"x1 is specific to [sumti] in aspect x2"

For the verb "to box", you would probably want something like {taxpu'i}
(tanxe punji).


> In English when
> a noun is turned into a verb by the subtraction of an -er suffix, i.e.
> "goer--> go", any ordinary subject or object can be used.  Is x1 of "me
> le tanxe" a person or machine that boxes things, and is x2 a place for
> anything boxed?  In other words, can any appropriate items be used for
> the sumti of a selbri created by me conversion?

I don't think so. You could stretch it to say that someone that boxes things
is specific to a box, but the aspect x2 could never be the thing being boxed.

Jorge