Wiki page BPFK Section: Grammatical Pro-sumti changed
On Wed, Aug 25, 2004 at 12:00:50PM -0700, Jorge Llamb?as wrote:
> --- Robin Lee Powell <rlpowell@digitalkingdom.org> wrote:
> > > The complexity of other potential sumti that could be used to
> > > refer to those same things is also not relevant.
> >
> > Yes, but I wanted to make the point clearly regardless.
> >
> > Do you have a serious problem with the inclusion of these
> > statements? They are intended for clarification.
>
> I don't understand what is it that they clarify. I think they
> detract from the definition,
I don't ever again want to here anyone saying anything like "that's
too complicated to fill an empty place!". I may be hallucinating
that that's an issue, but that's the reason.
> but I'm not changing my vote because of them if that's what you
> mean by serious.
OK.
> > > > ;zu'i (KOhA7): Typical it. zu'i is a pro-sumti
> > > > (meaning it takes the place of a fully-specified sumti).
> > > > zu'i represents some value that is typical for the bridi
> > > > place it fills.
> > >
> > > I don't think this really makes much sense, but I don't have a
> > > better proposal for {zu'i}.
> >
> > Neither do I.
>
> I wonder if I can now go and redefine {lo'e} and {le'e} as:
>
> lo'e broda = zo'e noi zu'i no'u ke'a broda
>
> le'e broda = zo'e noi mi do ke'a skicu lo ka zu'i no'u ce'u broda
I don't see how that works, since zu'i isn't filling a bridi place
there, really.
-Robin