Robin's gadri Proposal
On Tue, Jul 27, 2004 at 06:49:38AM -0700, Jorge Llamb?as wrote:
> --- Robin Lee Powell wrote:
> > On Mon, Jul 26, 2004 at 02:04:47PM -0700, Jorge Llamb?as wrote:
> > > --- Robin Lee Powell wrote:
> > > > How does "mi ja'a pu klama su'o zo'e" not imply "mi ja'a pu
> > > > klama zo'e", exactly?
> > >
> > > The second sentence leaves more to context. By making {su'o}
> > > explicit, you prevent a more precise claim from being derived from
> > > context.
> >
> > I'm not disagreeing, I'm just not sure I understand. Can you give a
> > value for the second sentence that can't be encompassed by the
> > first?
>
> The obvious value from the example I gave is {le zarci}. {mi ja'a
> klama le zarci} is not the same answer as {mi ja'a klama su'o le
> zarci} to the question {xu do klama le zarci}.
I thought you said that "le broda" was equal to "su'o da poi broda" in
CLL lo?
-Robin