View source for uses of ku


== Is ''munjyne'i [[ku|ku]]'' grammatical? ==

(See [[ku|ku]] if you're looking for a list of the uses of ''ku''.)

(jbofi'e considers it ungrammatical. It's right; I can't find a grammar rule to support the construction <brivla> + ku)

You're right, although - OTOH - there doesn't seem to be a rule explicitly forbidding it ;-) So, again and again, I'm seduced to do it that way.

The functionality of {ku} seems a bit fuzzy to me:

* It's just that (unusually) it has [[ku our different roles|ku our different roles]] as a terminator, unlike most terminators which have only one (''kei'' just terminates abstractions, ''lo'o'' just terminates math expressions, etc. etc.).  This is a survival from its original [[Loglan|Loglan]] use (in the form of ''gu'') as the ''only'' terminator.

So why not use it also with regard to {brivla} i.e. whole sentences/phrases etc. in order to put these parts of speech anywhere in the sentence you'd like to, which is allowed officially for tenses+ku etc. (e.g. in ".i mi xabju le zdani be la turni ze'uku" or ".i puzuvuku ....").

(It cannot be done e.g. by using termsets, since those need sumti)

I'd like to do constructions like e.g. in Turkish: "Türk olarak..." (Being a Turk, I...) or even more complex phrases, which require {brivla}, putting them '''in front''' of the whole utterance or '''at the end''' or where ever it's preferred to have them. ''--.aulun.''

* This is a topic/comment sentence: put ''mi poi kulnr,tirki,ie'' in the prenex.