[All threads]
Can {za'o} be interpreted as "starting too late after ...", in addition to "continuing too long after natural end of ..."? I, who agree to the preferred definition of {xa'o}, guess this is the case.
I don't think so.{xa'o na} means "already not", which would mean the event has ended too soon, but it doesn't indicate the "ending too soon" stage which would be the opposite of "starting too late". Similarly {za'o na}, "still not" can indicate that something will start too late, but it doesn't indicate the "starting too late" stage itself. {za'o co'a}, "still starting", might be an approximation for what you want, for lack of anything better. {xa'o co'u} is better for "ending too soon", or "already ending".
I don't think so.
{xa'o na} means "already not", which would mean the event has ended too soon, but it doesn't indicate the "ending too soon" stage which would be the opposite of "starting too late".
Similarly {za'o na}, "still not" can indicate that something will start too late, but it doesn't indicate the "starting too late" stage itself.
{za'o co'a}, "still starting", might be an approximation for what you want, for lack of anything better.
{xa'o co'u} is better for "ending too soon", or "already ending".
Sometimes I see {gi'e ku'i} without being followed by a {bo}. Is it an error?
{ku'i} is in UI, no {bo} required there. You may be confusing it with {ki'u}, which is in BAI, and would require {bo} when used with a connective .
{ku'i} is in UI, no {bo} required there.
You may be confusing it with {ki'u}, which is in BAI, and would require {bo} when used with a connective .
In the 3rd paragraph of {ni'o re mo'o},{ni'o [...] .i la'a da nitcu lo nu klama lo nenri kei gi'e ku'i mutce senpi [...] .i ca lo pu cerni ca lo nu lo vorme cu stela ganlo zo'u ro da djica lo nu klama lo nenri be lo gy kumfa}, {da} is used twice without definition. Is it considered to have the same referent?
In the 3rd paragraph of {ni'o re mo'o},
{ni'o [...] .i la'a da nitcu lo nu klama lo nenri kei gi'e ku'i mutce senpi [...] .i ca lo pu cerni ca lo nu lo vorme cu stela ganlo zo'u ro da djica lo nu klama lo nenri be lo gy kumfa}
, {da} is used twice without definition. Is it considered to have the same referent?
In this case, it just happens that {da} will take values from the people in the house both times.But in general a new quantification is like starting with a new variable. You can't quantify with the same variable twice, so a second quantifier forces the variable to take values from a (possibly) different set.
In this case, it just happens that {da} will take values from the people in the house both times.
But in general a new quantification is like starting with a new variable. You can't quantify with the same variable twice, so a second quantifier forces the variable to take values from a (possibly) different set.
{gy zi setca lo stedu lo ladru fe'e co'u na'e ru'e bo lo gapru be lo kanla}What is this {bo} for?
{gy zi setca lo stedu lo ladru fe'e co'u na'e ru'e bo lo gapru be lo kanla}
What is this {bo} for?
NAhE BO has the same grammar as LAhE. NAhE by itself can't be used to modify a sumti.
NAhE BO has the same grammar as LAhE.
NAhE by itself can't be used to modify a sumti.
Is {litkyvinega} a valid fu'ivla?
No, fu'ivla can't have "y". The type-3 would be liktrvinega. (I suggest {sarvanju} if what you are looking for is word for "vinegar" though.)
No, fu'ivla can't have "y". The type-3 would be liktrvinega.
(I suggest {sarvanju} if what you are looking for is word for "vinegar" though.)
Can the referent of {go'i} be inside a {nu} construct? Example:mi zgana lo nu ti vorme .i lo se go'i na se viska
Can the referent of {go'i} be inside a {nu} construct? Example:
mi zgana lo nu ti vorme .i lo se go'i na se viska
Officially, no, the antecedent of go'i can't be a subordinate bridi. That's often a pain.
Is this grammatical:lo gunka [cu] pu ri'agi mutce gi fanta lo nu mi spuda le fonxa
Is this grammatical:
lo gunka [cu] pu ri'agi mutce gi fanta lo nu mi spuda le fonxa
Not with {cu} like that. You need either: lo gunka pu [ku] [cu] ri'agi mutce gi fanta lo nu mi spuda le fonxaor:lo gunka [cu] pu ke ri'agi mutce gi fanta lo nu mi spuda le fonxa [ke'e]That's a quirk of the grammar that should probably be fixed.
Not with {cu} like that. You need either:
lo gunka pu [ku] [cu] ri'agi mutce gi fanta lo nu mi spuda le fonxa
or:
lo gunka [cu] pu ke ri'agi mutce gi fanta lo nu mi spuda le fonxa [ke'e]
That's a quirk of the grammar that should probably be fixed.
"logical prenex"?
>>403 "cipnlrobin" is of course a cmevla, not a fu'ivla. Let's say then "cipnlrobini"
>>403
"cipnlrobin" is of course a cmevla, not a fu'ivla. Let's say then "cipnlrobini"
>>404Wouldn't {cipnrobini}, without {l}, work as well?
>>404
Wouldn't {cipnrobini}, without {l}, work as well?
>>408 It would work in the sense that it is a valid fu'ivla form. But it is not a type-3 with classifier cipn-. (In fact, since cip is the rafsi for cipra, it's a type-3 with classifier cip: cip-n-robini.)
>>408
It would work in the sense that it is a valid fu'ivla form. But it is not a type-3 with classifier cipn-. (In fact, since cip is the rafsi for cipra, it's a type-3 with classifier cip: cip-n-robini.)
{lo nu ponse lo kagni cu frili cenba lo ka jinvi kei fi'o to'e se va'u lo se jibri}I suppose {to'e se va'u} is already a modal. So why is it preceded by {fi'o}?
{lo nu ponse lo kagni cu frili cenba lo ka jinvi kei fi'o to'e se va'u lo se jibri}
I suppose {to'e se va'u} is already a modal. So why is it preceded by {fi'o}?
Editing error. Fixed, thanks.
"zo'e ca ze'aca co'e"
>>393So with "pu ze'apu", it says that in the past, at a time designated Tp, something happened for awhile in the past of Tp (though, it may have also continued on until or into the future of Tp, as well)."ba ze'ica" means that in the future, at a time designated Tf, something (an event) will have been happenning for a little while in the past, present, and future of Tf (since it is oriented around/on Tf, but must have a span of time. Tf is some point in the middle of the span of time).
>>393
So with "pu ze'apu", it says that in the past, at a time designated Tp, something happened for awhile in the past of Tp (though, it may have also continued on until or into the future of Tp, as well).
"ba ze'ica" means that in the future, at a time designated Tf, something (an event) will have been happenning for a little while in the past, present, and future of Tf (since it is oriented around/on Tf, but must have a span of time. Tf is some point in the middle of the span of time).
>>402 Right. (In the first case, Tp would be the end point of the interval.)
>>402
Right. (In the first case, Tp would be the end point of the interval.)
>>405.ua .a'uSo, the time specified by the first PU is the end point if it is "zo pu" (it does not continue into the future), a point in the middle if "zo ca", and beginning point if "zo ba".Interesting.
>>405
.ua .a'u
So, the time specified by the first PU is the end point if it is "zo pu" (it does not continue into the future), a point in the middle if "zo ca", and beginning point if "zo ba".
Interesting.
- wakaba 3.0.7 + futaba + futallaby -