WikiDiscuss

WikiDiscuss


BPFK Section: Epistemology sumtcita

posts: 2388



>
> > > derived from {lo jbama cu se catni fi lo nu
> lo jenmi cu jibri mi}.
> >
> > Again, I think this translation is pointless,
> and it disagrees with
> > both the ma'oste and usage.
>
> The point is to have some rule. The ma'oste
> just gives keywords,
> and usage sometimes tends to follow the
> keywords instead of
> following some regular pattern. Maybe my rule
> is not the best,
> but then let's find a better one, not just
> "follow the keywords".

It is nowhere clear that there is or needs to be
a rule about these things — and therr are cases
that clearly conflict with your proposed rule.
In that case, the conventional meaning is the
thing to look at, not some abstract and only
weakly supported rule.

> > > The obvious place for the main event with
> {ca'i} is the x2 of
> > > {catni}, but since for {se ca'i} x2 is not
> available, the second
> > > choice is x3, isn't it?
> >
> > Where did you get this bizarre idea that BAI
> always involves putting
> > the main bridi somewhere?
>
> Why bizarre? Isn't that the simplest
> interpretation of {fi'o broda},
> that {broda} relates the main bridi to a new
> argument? How else
> could the new argument be related to the main
> bridi through
> {broda}?
>
A new argument relates its sumti to the whole
predication, not conversely. It just adds one
more relation to the original; it does not take
the original as a whole as a relatum.