Wiki page BPFK Section: Causation sumtcita changed by rlpowell
Dang; I was expecting B, the reason for my
believing not the reason I believed to hold.
> On 6/14/05, John E Clifford
> <clifford-j@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
> > It seems what is needed is to distinguish
> among
> > A. {ni'i ma} modifying x2 within the scope of
> the
> > {du'u} after {krici}
> > I gather this is something like {do krici lo
> du'u
> > x2 ni'i ma}
> > B. {ni'i ma} modifying x2 but outside the
> scope
> > of {du'u} and {krici}
> > {do krici lo du'u x2kei ne ni'i ma}
> (?????????)
> > C. {ni'a ma} modifying {krici} (or rather the
> > whole sentence)
> > {ni'i ma do krici lo du'u x2} =(??) {do krici
> le
> > du'u x2 kei ni'i ma}
>
> Yep, that's about it.
>
> I find C an unlikely question, and in any case
> looking
> into the dialogue from where the example was
> taken, it
> turns out that although C was said {ni'i ma do
> krici lo
> du'u gendra}, almost certainly A was intended:
> {do krici lo du'u gendra ni'i ma}. (Assuming
> that's where
> the example came from, but that's the only one
> Google
> finds.)
>
> mu'o mi'e xorxes
>
>
>
>