hmm, so let's suppose the conversation: jon doesn't enjoy rock climbing. he does it anyway though.
how would I express "it" in this context? I see this being maybe "la jon na prami (what word for enjoy?) lo nu rokci cpare .i ku'i la jy se go'i". Or maybe "se di'u". Neither of those look right though. It feels like there should be a way for saying "put the referent of the x2 place of some other utterance <HERE>" a bad example, but what I mean is, sometimes you want to refer to something other than the relationship of the previous utterance. Is there some way to do like ".i mi ca prami lo nu mi se go'i" as in "the referent of the x2 place of the last utterance" or "x3" or "internal bridi" etc... Or maybe, is there a way to be intentionally vague like "what I was talking about back in that last utterance" thus leaving it up to the listener to understand it from context? - Luke Bergen On Wed, Apr 1, 2009 at 1:43 AM, Stela Selckiku <[email protected]> wrote: > On Wed, Apr 1, 2009 at 12:01 AM, Luke Bergen <[email protected]> > wrote: > > So the definition of "la'e" is "the referent of (indirect pointer);". > This > > seems like a very fuzzy kind of idea. If I say "mi gleki lo nu do pu > klama > > lo zarci" in the next utterance will "la'e di'u" refer to my happiness, > me, > > or the event of "do pu klama lo zarci"? Would the listener just have to > > pick this sort of thing up from context? > > > No it means something very specific. Each bridi is a description of a > relationship, in the case of "mi gleki lo nu do pu klama lo zarci", > the relationship of "gleki" between "mi" and "lo nu li'o". The > referent found by "la'e" therefore is the relationship itself which > the "di'u" sentence is a description of. > > First think about how "la'e" applies to something simpler, like a > symbol or description of a symbol. "la'e lu la nicte cadzu li'u", the > referent of the piece of text "la nicte cadzu", is a book by la > camgusmis. If we're talking about the name "selckiku", and we say > "la'e le cmene", the referent of the name, that would be the selcme, > the person named, me. Now, getting very close to using it with > "di'u", let's try it with a whole sentence: "la'e lu mi gleki lo nu do > pu klama lo zarci li'u" -- the referent of that sentence, namely, the > relationship of "gleki" asserted between "mi" and "lo nu li'o". (You > could also refer to a sentence indirectly, like "la'e le jufra", > referent of the sentence.) > > So if you say "mi gleki", that statement as a whole can be considered > a symbol, which refers to a referent (the actual fact of my > happiness). If you then pick it up with "di'u", you are referring > then to the statement considered as a symbol. "la'e" turns that into > a reference to the relationship which the statement/symbol refers to. > > .i dei jufra .i di'u melbi jufra > & this.sentence sentence & previous.sentence beautiful sentence > This is a sentence. That was a beautiful sentence. > > .i dei jufra .i la'e di'u fatci gi'e nai jufra > & this.sentence sentence & referent.of previous.sentence fact and not > sentence > This is a sentence. That sentence described a fact, not a sentence. > > It's a rather abstract concept and I fear I've failed to explain it > clearly, so someone else please take a swing too. But, um, > incidentally, have you ever met "le nu go'i"? :) Grab for that first. > > mu'o mi'e la selckiku > > > >
