GLI xu lei ci valsi cu valsi?

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

Jorge:
> >> But {selvlagau} would only work for single words.
>  >
> >How come? Where does the restriction to single words come from?
>
> Is not the x1 of valsi a single word? Then {ro jufra cu valsi}?

I'd have thought so. I wouldn't insist on that, but if I'm
wrong I'd like the fault in my reasoning to be explained.

> >"pa valsi" is a single word, but "valsi" doesn't mean "is a
> >single word".
>
> If {lu mi klama le zarci li'u cu valsi} then {pa valsi} could
> be {lu mi klama le zarci li'u}, I think.

I see your reasoning. If {lei re valsi cu valsi} does not make
sense then I withdraw my contention. However, if it does make
sense then I offer the following account.

{re da cu valsi} means that the two da are differentiated from
one another by the criterion of what counts as a single valsi.
But {valsi} still means "is wordage". {da valsi} means "da is
wordage". But "pa valsi" means "something that is a single unit
of wordage".

> >After all, {lei ci valsi cu valsi} is sensical,
> >isn't it?
>
> I'd say no. {lei ci valsi cu valsi gunma} if you like.
> I'm not sure, but it seems that you could run into
> inconsistencies if {lei ci valsi cu valsi}. How would
> you define something that is a valsi?

"Valsi" basically means "text", except that the basic unit
is different (the basic unit of valsi is the single word).

I understand your position, and it makes sense. But our views
are incompatible. I'll think about whether yours leads to
problems, and you can do likewise with mine.

--And