[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: TECH: lambda and "ka" revisited

la djan la and di'e spuda

> > I think I get it.
> >
> >    lo suu broda kei be lo ganxo
> >
> > is equivalent to
> >
> >    lo ganxo poi kea duu broda
> >    lo duu broda kei poi kea ganxo
> No, I don't think so.  It's the asshole-abstraction of something-unspecified
> being a thingummy, whatever that is.

Then what exactly is the role of the x2 of su'u? There exists an asshole
(whose?) that is in relationship {su'u broda kei} with what? If the what
is not itself the asshole, then what is it, and how does the asshole
come into it?

> But it is not necessarily itself an
> asshole:  "le nu broda kei cu na fasnu" can be true, although not by your
> reading of "nu".

{le nu broda cu su'u broda kei lo fasnu}, i.e. there is an event
that is in relationship {su'u broda kei} with the event {le nu broda}.

If that is so, what event is that {lo fasnu}, if not {le nu broda} itself?

> > - Or? Since a bridi is not a fasnu, or a ganxo, or whatever, these would
> > always fail to refer, unless used with a nonveridical gadri.
> A bridi is not a fasnu, a ckaji, a klani, ... either.

What is a bridi, exactly? Is a bridi a chunk of text or is it a proposition?
Should I say {le du'u broda cu bridi} or {lu broda li'u bridi}?