Re: intemperate response to Lojbab on situational types

[ucleaar <ucleaar@UCL.AC.UK>]

> > > I have no idea what "ko'a mu'e" or "*ko'a pu'u" might mean
> > They are both grammatical (as far as I know), and both have obvious
> > meanings. {koa mue} means "It is a point event abstraction" and {koa puu}
> > means "It is a process abstraction". If you look up NU in you cmavo
> > list you will find these two cmavo.
>    {*ko'a mu'e} isn' grammatical. "mu'e", like any NU, must be
>    followed by a sentence. {NU sentence /KEI/} is a selbri,
>    while a lone NU isn't. {ko'a mu'e} parses as (ko'a VAU) --
>    "mu'e" is just trailing noise in this case.

I suspected this might be so, but it struck me as unlikely, for it is
not clear to me why {NU KEI} should not also be grammatical. It can't
be to prevent ambiguity, as either way the construct is terminated by
kei. Anyway, for {koa mue/puu} read {koa mue/puu bua}.

> > I realize that you have no problem viewing their act as lo za,i cinba.
> > That is precisely the problem. If {ti za,i} is true than {ti nuncinba}
> > is not (assuming {nuncinba} means "is a kiss"). {ti cinba za,i} or
> > {ti za,i zei cinba} might be fair descriptions.
>   *{ti za'i}         parses as (ti VAU)
>   *{ti cinba za'i}   parses as (ti VAU)

Read {ti za,i bua}, {ti cinba za,i bua}.

>   {ti za'i ze'i cinba} is OK. It parses as

Read {ti za,i zei cinba} = {ti za'i zei cinba}.

coo, mie and