WikiDiscuss

On Thu, Jan 13, 2005 at 10:00:20AM -0600, Adam D. Lopresto wrote:
> It definitely would. Whether or not it should be legal, though,
> I'm less certain of. (There are a huge number of ways of pissing
> off one's audience, and arbitrarily restricting them can lead to
> problems.) Personally, I'd naively read that with the modifiers
> affecting the sa.

If we're going to allow that sort of thing, that's how I'd read it
as well.

> mi viska le bruna be la .djan. sa .u'u la .djein.

Becomes:

mi viska le bruna be la .djein.

in effect then, yes? Because the .u'u goes away with the sa it
modified? That was my suggestion to xorxes, which he disagreed
with.

> Which is more or less equivalent to the modifiers dropping out
> (along with the replaced term and the sa).

<nod>

> I think whatever gets decided about what they actually mean, they
> won't get used much (but should they be banned on those grounds,
> and then we lose them when we actually have a good use for them?).

Indeed.

> 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.

sa da si sa le bruna — the parser doesn't currently like this, but
it should.

The other way is to allow multiple sa, which pretty much everyone
has said they don't like. I kinda think their neat, but not enough
to push on it.

> 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?

Not.

-Robin