Re: TEXT: le gunse ku joi le lorxu

[jorge@PHYAST.PITT.EDU]

> But I was asking about the difference
> between {le} and {lo} (which seems to parallel the difference between
> {lei} and {loi}).  I didn't quite follow xorxes' explanation:
>
> > In the other case, I could have said {pa le betfu} instead of
> > {lo betfu}, but I preferred the shorter one. In any case, I want
> > to individuate them: Every time, that _one_ of the belies explodes...
>
> Does {lo} imply singularity? I would think that either {le betfu} or {lo
> betfu} could refer to one or more than one stomach, the only difference
> being whether the things actually are stomachs or only described that
> way.

Both can refer to one or more.  {le} refers to each and every one, of
those you have in mind.  {lo} refers to at least one, of those that are.
{lo} does not imply singularity, but only makes a claim about at least
one.  (You claim that it is true for one, without denying that it can be
true for more.)

{pa le betfu} means "one of the stomachs".  I could also say {su'o le
betfu}, "at least one of the stomachs", or {pa lo betfu}, "one stomach"
= "one of all stomachs there are".

>  It seems like {co'a spoja fa le betfu} would be
> slightly wrong, since the explosions don't all happen at once.  Is this
> what you're trying to say?

        le betfu co'a spoja
        Each of the stomachs starts to explode.

        lo betfu co'a spoja
        Some stomach starts to explode. (Maybe others do too, but I claim
        that at least one does.)

        lei betfu co'a spoja
        The stomachs start to explode. (The mass of them starts to
        explode, not each of them. Not all of them explode at the same
        time, so the mass starts to explode when the first one explodes.)

        loi betfu co'a spoja
        Some stomachs start to explode. (An unspecified group of stomachs
        starts to explode.)

> How does {co'a spoja fa lei betfu ba le lorpanzi} stack up?
                                    be

{co'a spoja} is the selbri

{lei betfu be lei lorpanzi} is the sumti, that goes in the x1 of {spoja}.

{lei lorpanzi} goes in the x2 of {betfu}.

> Let me voice a premature opinion.  Saying {lo crida} makes just as much
> sense as {le fetygunse ku joi le fetlorxu cu tavla simxu}; neither can be
> true in this world, but could be used in a story (or, I suppose, by
> someone that believes in the referents).

That's right.  If there is something that crida, then {lo crida} can
refer to it.  Whether something can be said to crida or not, that
depends on how the speakers understand the language.  It would be
strange to have a word for a relationship that holds among no referents.

{lo crida} is at least one of the things that are in relationship
{crida} with a mythos/religion, according to the gismu list.


> > > > .i badri je klaku klama fo le cmana .ize'iku lo kilpezli ly batci
> > > > .i zo pof .i ly spoja
>
> .i ke'u.uanai ma badri je klaku klama

i li'azo'o le lorxu cu go'i


> e'u do cilre lei bangu .i zo'o zo'onai ro bangu te djuno be do cu
> banri'a .ai le ka do na ka'e seljmi
>
> Clever (especially getting them both 79 columns).  But:
>
> Should the first {do} be {ko}?

In my opinion it is not necessary, because {e'u} already shows that it
is not an indicative sentence.

These types of effect of UIs have not been very well established yet,
but I think it is clear that some UIs have a strong effect in this
refard:  e'u, ai, a'o, au, etc.  I don't think we can say that bridi
with these indicators claim what the bridi says without them.

> The x2 of jimpe is a fact, not a person.  Shouldn't it be {le ka ma do na
> ka'e seljmi}?  ({ma do} standing for {le do selsku} or {le do te djuno}.)

I think you mean something other than {ma}, which is the question sumti.
Maybe {le ka tu'a do na ka'e seljmi} or {le ka le me do na ka'e seljmi}.

> co'o mi'e dilyn. TRS,ton.

co'o mi'e xorxes