WikiDiscuss

On 12/7/05, Robin Lee Powell <rlpowell@digitalkingdom.org> wrote:
> On Wed, Dec 07, 2005 at 11:55:13AM -0300, Jorge Llamb?as wrote:
> > I take {gunma pa xunre dacti} to mean "consists of exactly one red
> > piece", no other pieces of any kind. In other words, I take
> > {gunma} to mean what you use {mulgunma} for.
>
> Then you need to take that up with the gismu list. Everyone on IRC
> at the time I asked (except me) said that the x2 of gunma need not
> be a complete specification.

If it's not a complete specification, the "considered jointly" does not
make a lot of sense.

> > if a koan ko'a consists of ko'e and ko'i, I would say:
> >
> > ko'a gunma ko'e joi ko'i
> >
> > "ko'a consists of ko'e and ko'i together"
> >
> > and not
> >
> > ko'a gunma ko'e .e ko'i
>
> You are, of course, correct that me usage of .e is wrong. Hardly
> the first time.
>
> That doesn't mean that the x2 of gunma is a full specification,
> though. Seperate issues.

Not a separate issue. If a mere component is enough in x2, then
the {.e} version is perfectly correct, since each of {ko'a gunma ko'e}
and {ko'a gunma ko'i} would be true.

mu'o mi'e xorxes