tagged termsets
On Tue, Oct 20, 2009 at 12:34 PM, lagejyspa wrote: > > Totus asked about the following at the end of chapter 3 > > ciska tetai piro se mi'esku be la xaMAN. bei ge le turni pe le nolraitru ge'u .e le viptru vu'o poi turni ro selje'a ku'o gi le nobli be ro natmi be'o > > "Shouldn't there be a {nu'u} in front of {gi}? (CLL Chapter 14, example 11..7)" > > I wasn't really sure. He may very well be right. Both parse, but I'm not sure exactly the difference is semantically (and jbofi'e doesn't handle tagged termsets), so I was wondering if some kind jbocre can help us out here?
"Tagged termsets" or "tagged-term sets"? The former are not grammatical.
Anyway, "nu'u" makes no difference, it's an elidable terminator, and there are two of them, one for each termset:
nu'i ge tecu'u ro selje'a sepi'o lo selyle'u pe ri nu'u gi tecu'u ro natmi bau lo bangu be ri nu'u
mu'o mi'e xorxes
2009/10/20 Jorge Llambías : > On Tue, Oct 20, 2009 at 12:34 PM, lagejyspa wrote: >> >> Totus asked about the following at the end of chapter 3 >> >> ciska tetai piro se mi'esku be la xaMAN. bei ge le turni pe le nolraitru ge'u .e le viptru vu'o poi turni ro selje'a ku'o gi le nobli be ro natmi be'o >> >> "Shouldn't there be a {nu'u} in front of {gi}? (CLL Chapter 14, example 11..7)" >> >> I wasn't really sure. He may very well be right. Both parse, but I'm not sure exactly the difference is semantically (and jbofi'e doesn't handle tagged termsets), so I was wondering if some kind jbocre can help us out here? > > "Tagged termsets" or "tagged-term sets"? The former are not grammatical. > > Anyway, "nu'u" makes no difference, it's an elidable terminator, and > there are two of them, one for each termset: > > nu'i ge tecu'u ro selje'a sepi'o lo selyle'u pe ri nu'u gi tecu'u > ro natmi bau lo bangu be ri nu'u > > mu'o mi'e xorxes
ki'e
But why then does the CLL not mark the first nu'u as elidible in the example cited by Andrew? I assumed that the scoping was somehow different between the two versions.
--gejyspa
On Tue, Oct 20, 2009 at 3:01 PM, Michael Turniansky wrote: > > But why then does the CLL not mark the first nu'u as elidible in the > example cited by Andrew? I assumed that the scoping was somehow > different between the two versions.
I assume it's just a typo. In fact the first "nu'u" is more elidable than the second, because "gi" itself always shows the end of the first termset.
mu'o mi'e xorxes