WikiDiscuss

On 6/10/05, John E Clifford <clifford-j@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
> > > It has, in fact never been used as a
> > > relation so far as I can tell.
> >
> > NU's are hardly ever used as relations, they
> > are almost
> > always used as descriptions, yes, but "never"
> > is a bit
> > strong.
>
> Frinstance?

For instance:

-----------------------------
On 4/8/05, John E Clifford <clifford-j@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
> --- Jorge Llambías <jjllambias@gmail.com> wrote:
> > On Apr 8, 2005 9:24 PM, John E Clifford
> > <clifford-j@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
> > > The suggestion to put it into abstract form,
> > {nu}
> > > or {du'u}, is a good one except that it is
> > hard
> > > to see what the appropriate sentences would
> > be;
> > > what selbri goes with the abstract sumti.
> >
> > ko'a nu la suzan klama
> > i ko'e du'u ko'a lerci
> > i ko'i du'u la jan djuno ko'e
> > i la suzan sruma ko'i
>
> Nice!
---------------------------

...
> Ahah! Looking at the other cases makes the
> definition of {du'u} somewhat clearer since the
> others do not involve linguistic items in the
> same way. The "bridi" in the definition does
> not refer — as it appears to on first reading --
> to x1, but to inserting the bridi at that point
> in the whole, a convention used for all the
> abstracts

Right.

> but different from the one used for,
> say, MOI which indicates the insertion (not very
> well) in a different way

True.

> and several other places
> where "[]" is used to clarify restrictions on
> places or on meanings (which is also done
> elsewhere with parentheses).

True. The gi'uste conventions are not very systematic.

> So, while you are
> reworking cmavo definitions it might be a good
> idea to revise and standardize these indicators.

Yes.

mu'o mi'e xorxes