Posts and uploaded files are owned by the poster. jbotcan.org is not liable for the content submitted by the poster. Downloading any poster-submitted files is doing so at your own risk.
Is "mi ka'e pu klama" grammatical? If not, why?Thank you.
Is "mi ka'e pu klama" grammatical? If not, why?
Thank you.
It isn't currently allowed ("pu" has to be before "ka'e"), but there's a proposal to alter the grammar to allow it: http://www.lojban.org/tiki/Internal+grammar+of+tags
I am able to cameI was able to come?
>>1385 Strictly speaking it is grammatical, but it has an elided terminator: "mi ka'e /ku/ pu klama", unlike "mi pu ka'e klama" which has no elided terminator because "pu ka'e" is an allowed compound tense. The proposal would make both parse with the same structure.On the other hand "lo ka'e pu klama" is ungrammatical, unlike "lo pu ka'e klama" which is grammatical. The proposal would make both grammatical.
>>1385
Strictly speaking it is grammatical, but it has an elided terminator: "mi ka'e /ku/ pu klama", unlike "mi pu ka'e klama" which has no elided terminator because "pu ka'e" is an allowed compound tense. The proposal would make both parse with the same structure.
On the other hand "lo ka'e pu klama" is ungrammatical, unlike "lo pu ka'e klama" which is grammatical. The proposal would make both grammatical.
>>1387Ah. That looks correct. I based my statement on jboski's failure to parse "mi ka'e pu klama".
>>1387
Ah. That looks correct. I based my statement on jboski's failure to parse "mi ka'e pu klama".
>>1387How does this change the meaning, or is simply a parsing issue?
How does this change the meaning, or is simply a parsing issue?
>>1389 ka'e pu: It is possible that in the past ...pu ka'e: In the past it was possible that ...
>>1389
ka'e pu: It is possible that in the past ...pu ka'e: In the past it was possible that ...