Wiki page BPFK Section: Causation sumtcita changed by rlpowell
>
> The x2 of cusku is paradigmatically a text. A
> text is not
> something you express, it is something you say
> in
> order to express something else. The keyword
> "express"
> for {cusku} is misleading.
This last clainm is certainly true, on the basis
of this discussion
>
> You say "thank you" to express gratitude.
> You say "I am done eating" to express that you
> are done eating.
> You don't express words, you express something
> _with_ words.
>
> > > so what you want to say is:
> > >
> > > mi cusku le nu mi sanli binxo kei fau le nu
> mo'u citka
> > >
> > > "I express (something) with my standing up,
> the event that eating
> > > is over."
> >
> > That seems totally non-sensical to me. You
> can't express an event.
>
> Right, you express _with_ an event, just as you
> express _with_
> words.
>
> {cusku} means "x1 expresses with x2", not "x1
> expresses x2".
This is certainly false according to the present
glossary. Now, whether "express" and "say" are
totally different categories is open to some
dispute. We tend to think of means of
expressions (things said or done) as transparent
to their message, which they often are not, so we
need some devise to explain them — what seems to
be going on here. In any case, a word that had a
place for the means of expression and no place
for what was expressed would be useless, the
oposite meaning would be useful, however. And
notice that {cusku} has a place for the means of
expression, but it is 4, not 2 (don't take
"medium" in too modern a sense). (In that sense
the present sentence is kinda dumb, since the
extra place is redundant.)