WikiDiscuss

---

> Personally, I'd
> naively read that with the modifiers affecting the sa.
>
> mi viska le bruna be la .djan. sa .u'u la .djein.
>
> Which is more or less equivalent to the modifiers dropping out (along with
> the
> replaced term and the sa).

I think that's the best interpretation.

>
> One question I'd have is whether there's a way to go further back.
>
> mi viska le burne be la .djan. sa li'o
>
> at this point, I realize that I wanted to say {bruna} instead of {bunre}, but
> because I've already started another sumti, it seems I'm stuck with a bunch
> of
> {si}s. Or maybe {sa viska le bruna be la .djan.} would be clearest anyway.

Yes. Although multiple SA's can probably be made to work,
I don't like it because it involves counting grammar constructs,
which is not something that is practical when speaking
(and when writing you don't need to use SA at all).

> Another question: How far back into tanru does it go when replacing a bridi
> tail? That is
>
> mi mutce nelci ko'a sa xebni ko'e
>
> Does the {mutce} remain, or not? I'd be inclined to say not (replace the
> entire selbri, you can always add back the parts you need), but I haven't
> seen
> it spelled out yet.

That's the idea. The entire bridi-tail gets replaced by the new one.

mu'o mi'e xorxes

__
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Mail - now with 250MB free storage. Learn more.
http://info.mail.yahoo.com/mail_250