xu do sisku lo lojbo tcana
  [Home] [Manage]

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.


[Return]
Posting mode: Reply

Painter: Width: Height: Source:

Leave these fields empty (spam trap):
Name
Link
Subject (encouraged)
Comment
File
Password (for post and file deletion)
  • Supported file types are: GIF, JPG, PNG
  • Maximum file size allowed is 1000 KB.
  • Images greater than 200x200 pixels will be thumbnailed.

No.1509  

According to jbofi'e,

lo pe da a de broda cu brode

is grammatical, but not

lo da a de broda cu brode

... why?

>> No.1510  

I could be totally off, but I will give a crack at it. I think what's happening is that because {da,de,etc...} are pro-sumti, jbofi'e sees {lo da} and expects another sumti (i.e. {lo da mlatu}). So it sees {lo da .a} and gets confused. Meanwhile, the first one is ok because the {pe} puts an implicit {zo'e} in before it... or something? at which point it's fine because it's { (lo zo'e (pe da .a de) broda) cu brode) so the zo'e and broda become a tanru.

If any more certu type folks need to correct me, please do.

>> No.1516  

>>1509

{lo da broda} is equivalent to {lo broda pe da}, but only simple sumti are allowed in the first case (i.e., no logically connected sumti). >>1510 is correct about why {lo da a ...} confuses the parser, but {lo pe da e de [ge'u] broda} doesn't have an implicit zo'e; that's just a normal relative phrase, but attached to a different location than normal. It's almost the same as {lo broda pe da e de}. See http://jbotcan.org/docs/cll/c8/s6.html for details about where relative phrases can be attached to a sumti.



Delete Post []
Password