WikiDiscuss

> ! Formal Definitions
>
> (AKA conversion formulas)
>
> || noi | PA broda noi brode cu brodi | PA broda cu brode .i je PA broda cu
> brodi

Hmm... There's something wrong here. The problem is that a quantified
term does not provide referents outside the scope of the quantifier, so
you can't really take the noi-clause out.

ci prenu noi melbi cu klama
Exactly three people, who are beautiful, came.

does not say that exactly three people came and exactly
three people are beautiful. It says that exactly three people
came and that *those same three people that came* are beautiful.

So {ko'a noi brode cu brodi} = {ko'a brode ije ko'a brodi},
but it won't work like that for quantified terms. When you have
a quantified term, first you have to take the quantifiers to the
prenex and only then apply this transformation, and you can't take
the noi outside the scope of the quantifier in such cases.

> voi, another way | PA broda voi brode cu brodi | PA broda poi mi skicu lo ka
> ke'a broda cu brodi

Shouldn't that be {poi mi ke'a do skicu lo ka ce'u brode}?

> ne | PA1 broda ne PA2 brode | PA1 broda noi ke'a srana PA2 brode
> pe | PA1 broda pe PA2 brode | PA1 broda poi ke'a srana PA2 brode
> no'u | PA1 broda no'u PA2 brode | PA1 broda noi ke'a du PA2 brode
> po'u | PA1 broda po'u PA2 brode | PA1 broda poi ke'a du PA2 brode
> po | PA1 broda po PA2 brode | PA1 broda poi ke'a se steci srana PA2 brode
> po'e | PA1 broda po'e PA2 brode | PA1 broda poi ke'a jinzi ke se steci srana
> PA2 brode

I would define these much more generally:

ne sumti = noi ke'a srana sumti
pe sumti = poi ke'a srana sumti
no'u sumti = noi ke'a du sumti
po'u sumti = poi ke'a du sumti

etc. It is not necessary to restrict the definitions to a particular
form of sumti, or to a particular point of application of the clause.

> vu'o | PA1 broda [JOI / A] PA2 brode vu'o [relative] | PA1 broda
> [relative] [JOI / A] PA2 brode [relative]

This does not always work like that. The relative clause need not be
distributive.

> zi'e | PA1 broda [relative] zi'e [relative] cu brode | da poi du PA1 broda
> zo'u da [relative] .e da [relative] cu brode

This one doesn't work in general either.
You could define it something like:

noi subsentence1 zi'e noi subsentence2 = noi ge subsentence1 gi subsentence2
poi subsentence1 zi'e noi subsentence2 = poi ge subsentence1 gi subsentence2
voi subsentence1 zi'e noi subsentence2 = voi ge subsentence1 gi subsentence2

ne, pe, etc. can be put into noi/poi form and then this conversion will
also apply. Mixed cases are a separate issue.

> goi, unassigned | [sumti 1] goi [sumti 2] | [sumti 1] poi du [sumti 2]
> ku'o
> goi, both assigned | [sumti 1] goi [sumti 2] | [sumti 2] poi binxo da poi
> mintu [sumti 1] ku'o ku'o

These are not true equivalents.

> * I have no idea why only pe and ne can be used with sumtcita
> clauses.

For a general tcita, {fi'o broda}, we would have:

pe fi'o broda fe'u sumti = poi ke'a jai broda fai sumti
ne fi'o broda fe'u sumti = noi ke'a jai broda fai sumti

Once we know what po and po'e are, we could probably have
similar conversion formulas for them, but I don't know what
it would mean to use tcita with goi, po'u, or no'u.

mu'o mi'e xorxes

__
Do you Yahoo!?
New and Improved Yahoo! Mail - 100MB free storage!
http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail