Re: replies re. ka & mamta be ma

[ucleaar <ucleaar@ucl.ac.uk>]

Jorge:
> > > > Surely not most members of, say SE, LE, PA?
>                  ~~~~~~~~~~~~
> i pau so'e cmima ji lei so'e cmima

I don't understand the question.

> Some other cmavo that strike me as especially basic are:
>    i dei zoi duhu
> i zo ni'o ka'e basti zo i

Iff there's a new topic.

> i <<lu le jufra poi mi ca cusku ke'a li'u>> ka'e basti zo dei

They're not equivalent in meaning, I think, because (and I
may be wrong here) the expressing is located at a region of
time that includes the punctual present, but the expressing
needn't be located exactly at the punctual present.
The meanings of {mi} and {ca} have to be defined in terms of
{dei}, so the circumlocution doesn't show {dei} isn't basic.

> i <<lu la'e lu broda li'u li'u>> ka'e basti <<lu le du'u broda li'u>>

I'm inclined to agree. Add {lu} to my list.

> > & maybe: fiho, goi, to
> i zo do'e joi zo poi ka'e basti zo fi'o

How would that work? (E.g. if a selbri has 3 fiho modals)

> i zo ca'e joi zo du ka'e basti zo goi

Maybe I'd misunderstood {goi}. I thought {X goi Y}
assigns the referent of X to Y, replacing any previous
referent Y previously had.

> > Your claim implies that it is possible to express everything
> > wholly without the use of cmavo.
> i na go'i
> i mi xusra la'e di'e
> i ro cmavo naku traji se nitcu
> i va'i no cmavo cu traji se nitcu
> i mi na xusra le du'u kakne le nu claxu ro cmavo
> i ji'a mi na xusra le du'u no selma'o cu se nitcu

I wonder if you genuinely misunderstand me. If we have 2 ways
of saying the same thing, only one of them is motivated by
requirements of expressiveness. It may be that (and this is
true of SE/LE vs NOI) that neither is plainly more basic than
the other, but one of them is redundant.

----
And