tense/modal is not equivalent to cu gotcha: Difference between revisions
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
No edit summary |
No edit summary |
||
| Line 2: | Line 2: | ||
{{mu|le nu mi klama pu vajni}} | {{mu|le nu mi klama pu vajni}} | ||
is a sumti with parse: | is a sumti with parse: | ||
{{mu|({le < | {{mu|<nowiki>({le < [nu (mi {klama < [pu KU] VAU>}) KEI] vajni> KU} VAU)}}</nowiki>}} | ||
==Discussion== | ==Discussion== | ||
Latest revision as of 18:43, 26 July 2015
You expect to be able to use pu in place of cu in front of a selbri to close the front sumti - right? Wrong - if it's an abstraction!
| le nu mi klama pu vajni |
is a sumti with parse:
| ({le < [nu (mi {klama < [pu KU] VAU>}) KEI] vajni> KU} VAU)}} |
Discussion
- I don't. Sounds like someone mislearned that tenses mark the start of selbri.
- To be fair, the book says:
The placement of a tense construct within a Lojban bridi is easy: right before the selbri. It goes immediately after the cu, and can in fact always replace the cu.
— CLL, (10.1, p. 216)
- Of course, it then goes on to say "(although in very complex sentences the rules for eliding terminators may be changed as a result)."