Re: LE and VOI

[And Rosta <a.rosta@UCLAN.AC.UK>]

Xorxes:
> All right, yes, I think I understand it now. As you said a couple
> of posts ago, it's the difference between:
>
>  (a)           There's a brilliant film such that I assert it is going to be
>                  on the telly tomorrow.
>
> and
>
> (b)            I assert that there's going to be a brilliant film on the
>                  telly tomorrow.
>
> We can easily say (b) using {lo}:
>
>                  lo xautce skina ba se tivni ca le bavlamdei

Agreed.

> but we don't have a direct  way of saying (a) unless we go for
> something like:
>
>     lo xautce skina zo'u mi xusra le du'u sy ba se tivni ca le bavlamdei

Doesn't really mean quite the same thing. (Try doing imperatives
or questions.)

> I'd say that even this should work:
>
>            lo xautce skina zo'u ju'a sy ba se tivni ca le bavlamdei

Hmmm. I don't really trust interactions of logical element and
UI. But even so, it's a mighty hassle to have to stick everything
in the prenex. To this, I prefer the {ba`e ko`a} method, but
still would like to find a method that uses a gadri and avoids
prenexes.

> Very interesting.

Yes, though I'm surprised we have had this exchange. I thought
we (you & me) had already established its upshot in years gone by.

--And