> broda .ije brode .ijabo brodi
> groups as:
> broda .ije (brode .ijabo brodi)
Ok, that makes sense.... mostly. BO takes the previous
word/construct/whatever and joins it in the shortest scope possible with the
following word/construct/whatever. And with {.ibabo} the previous sentence
implies that they (the two bridi) are connected by the {ba} and that the
{ba} is not modifying the following bridi in the normal (self-contained)
fashion.... am I right so far?
2010/3/23 Jorge Llambías <[email protected]>
> On Tue, Mar 23, 2010 at 5:43 PM, Luke Bergen <[email protected]>
> wrote:
> > Ok, so the difference between:
> > broda .ibabo brode
> > and
> > broda .ibaku brode
> > Is that the first one is saying that {brode} happens after {broda} and
> the
> > second one is saying that {brode} happens after (?) default of the
> speakers
> > present?
>
> Right. "Default" might be too strong, but yes, after something
> unspecified, probably the speaker's present, maybe even after broda.
> In the case of ".ibabo" it is definitely brode after broda.
>
> > I'm probably being a little intentionally thick here. The first time I
> saw
> > {.ibabo} I tried to figure it out on my own and got incredibly confused
> when
> > I got to the cmavo {bo}. Everything prior to that made sense; [new
> > sentence][in the future][tanru short scope link] ?!?!?! Why was it
> decided
> > to use an already used cmavo for this convention of {.i<cmavo>bo}?
>
> "tanru short scope link" is just a case of bad gloss for "bo". Simply
> "short scope link" would be better, used for tanru among other things.
>
> broda .ije brode .ijabo brodi
>
> groups as:
>
> broda .ije (brode .ijabo brodi)
>
> as opposed to:
>
> (broda .ije brode) .ija brodi
>
> No tanru in sight.
>
> > It seems
> > to me like one of the most non-conventional parts of the language at this
> > point. Or is {bo} supposed to be more general in some way that it
> actually
> > makes sense to use it in this other way?
>
> "bo" is not restricted to tanru, It can be used with all afterthought
> connectives, and also in the NAhE BO construction, where it
> effectively turns NAhE into something like LAhE.
>
> mu'o mi'e xorxes
>
>
>
>
