BPFK Section: Indirect Referers
pc:
> {la'e} seems to occur almost exclusively with pronouns referring to recent or
> near future utterances, which combinations probably deserve pronouns of their
> own rather than compounds, both elements of which see little independent
> activity.
Indeed. I would like to recycle {tei} and {tau} for {la'e di'u}
and {la'e de'u} or {la'e do'i}, which would sort of fit with the
{ti/ta/tu} series.
> Did we start to take plurals seriously (or systematically, if you think we
> already are serious about them), the ones for moving into and out of groups
> might serve to give the distributivity of occurrences of sumti not covered by
> other conventions and so come to some prominence.
Yes, except we don't have the LAhEs corresponding to jo'u (and to fa'u
for that matter). The system is full of holes:
ce - lo'i - lu'i
ce'o - XXX - vu'i
joi - loi - lu'o
jo'u - lo - lu'a?
fa'u - XXX - XXX
e - ro - ro lu'a?
a - su'o - su'o lu'a?
onai - pa - pa lu'a?
mu'o mi'e xorxes
__
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Mail - 50x more storage than other providers!
http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail