BPFK Super-Section: BAI sumtcita
> Jorge Llamb�as scripsit:
>
> > It should be in CAI though, it shouldn't have the exotic grammar
> > it has.
>
> I absolutely disagree. Each possible use needs to be explainable,
> and I already think there are too many: NU NAI, e.g.
The most obvious meaning for {nu nai} is {na nu}. That's hardly
ever useful, but it is perfectly well defined. I don't want to
extend the grammar of NAI because the new constructs would be
necessarily useful (some of them might be, most probably not) but
because it reduces the complexity of the grammar. Given that
{nai} really forms a set with {cu'i}, {ru'e}, {sai}, {cai}, it
is hard to understand why it has a more restrictive grammar.
There are other words that produce far more unexplainable
constructs and nobody worries about them. I am willing to go
over every selmaho and produce a plausible meaning for the NAI
construction. I already did it for many of them in a similar
discussion I had with Jordan some months ago.
One thing I would gladly eliminate are connected NUs though.
They are never used and their meaning is hard to determine.
The set of things that can be connected is quite reduced:
sentences, bridi-tails, sumti, tanru-units, operators,
operands, tags and NUs. Clearly NUs are out of place in that
list since they are basically structure words. It would be
similar if we allowed connected LEs, for example.
mu'o mi'e xorxes
__
Do you Yahoo!?
The all-new My Yahoo! - Get yours free!
http://my.yahoo.com