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

Re: `at least one ' vrs `one or more'



From: JORGE JOAQUIN LLAMBIAS <jorge@INTERMEDIA.COM.AR>

>la erik cusku di'e


>>zu'o go'i cu nu mi do'o xlura le za'i fengu
>>That activity (the previous selbri) is an event of me luring you all
>>into an state anger.
>>That's trolling.  :)
>>
>>Dare I ask if that was grammatical?
>
>Almost. You're missing a {le} or some other gadri at the
>start of the sentence.

I realized that scant moments after I sent it.

>As a matter of style, I prefer to use {nu} rather than {zu'o} or
>{za'i}, because I feel that these don't add anything to the
>meaning of the sentence and they just complicate it, so
>I would suggest: {le nu go'i cu nu mi do'o xlura le nu fengu}.
>But this is strictly style, and just my personal peeve. Others
>may and certainly do opine differently.

This was mostly an excercise in playing with chapter 15(?).  In this
case more specificity wasn't really needed, I agree.

>Another point is that if And is right about nu's being things
>that happen only, then the x3 of xlura should not take a nu
>(or any of its subsidiaries). I think the x3 should be the
>property {ka} into which x2 is lured.

Ah.  Actual events as opposed to possible/category-of events?  How far
is the abstraction, in other words, from relationship to an
instance/occurance of that relationship, or from relationship to a
category of hypothetical events?  Is that the root of the discussion?
[sorry I came in late.]

I grepped the reference grammar to no avail.  How does one speak of
hypothetical entities?  That-which-doesn't-exist-but-for-discussion-is a
whatever.  For example, "A duck walks into a bar" {le datka cu cadzu le
kafybarja}.  I'm not talking about a real duck.  I'm not even calling a
real object a duck.  Could {le datka} refer to my non-existant,
hypothetical duck?  If so, then {le nu} could be a non-existant,
hypothetical event, no?

>Finally, why is {le nu go'i} a {nu xlura} rather than a {ve xlura}?

Because I hadn't thought of that. :)

--
 Erik W. Cornilsen