WikiDiscuss

> (AKA conversion formulas)
>
> || noi | PA broda noi brode cu brodi | PA broda goi ko'a cu brode .i je ko'a
> cu brodi

This one requires changing brode and brodi in the last part, other than
that I think it's fine. I withdraw my previous objection that it won't work
for {no}: {no broda noi brode} is nonsense to start with, so it is proper
that the conversion gives nonsense too.

The formula could be made much more general though, for any sumti:

.... sumti noi ke'a broda ku'o ...
| tu'e ... sumti goi ko'a ... tu'u .i je ko'a broda

> poi + ro | ro broda poi brode cu brodi | ro da broda .i je da ga nai brode gi
> brodi
> poi + PA (but not ro or no) | PA broda poi brode cu brodi | PA da broda .i je
> da ge brode gi brodi

Those don't work at all. I think this one will:

[PA] sumti poi ke'a broda
| [PA] lo ckaji be lo ka ce'u me sumti gi'e broda

> zi'e | [sumti] [relative] zi'e [relative] [rest] | ko'a goi [[sumti]]
> [relative] [rest] .i je ko'a [relative] [rest]

I'm still uneasy about that one.

> goi, left or both unassigned | ko'a goi ko'e | zo ko'a zo ko'e co'a kansa lo
> ka ce'u sinxa
> goi, right unassigned | ko'a goi ko'e | zo ko'a co'a sinxa ko'e

More generally (ignoring oddball cases like both unassigned
or both assigned) for unquantified sumti we have:

sumti goi ko'a = ko'a goi sumti | zo ko'a co'a sinxa sumti

For quantified sumti the issue is a bit more complex. Maybe
something like:

.... PA sumti goi ko'a ...
| zo ko'a co'a sinxa PA sumti poi ... ke'a ...

Perhaps you should move the goi definitions to the top, since
many of the other conversions use goi. And maybe even put them
in a separate table, because they are not really conversion
formula but descriptions of what goes on.

mu'o mi'e xorxes

___
Do you Yahoo!?
Win 1 of 4,000 free domain names from Yahoo! Enter now.
http://promotions.yahoo.com/goldrush