View source for bridi to sumti converter

Syntax: CONVERTER + BRIDI + (KEI)

*Hello? '''le su'u''' anyone?
** '''le su'u''' = ''each of certain instances of an abstraction of an unspecified kind''. This is not a bridi to sumti converter. NU is a bridi to selbri converter. LE is not a selbri to sumti converter. '''li ni'e du'u''' might work if the converters are purely syntactic in effect. But saying '''li ni'e du'u''' three or four times a sentence, just because the syntax contains no bridi to sumti converter, is rather irksome.
*[[.djorden.|.djorden.]]:
**What would the use of a such a device be?  Judging by the claim that LE is not a selbri to sumti converter (which I think it probably could be called), I'm guessing <u>converter</u> is being used with the suggestion that it has 0 specified semantic meaning other than the conversion.  Which leads one to ask - what's the semantics of these converted bridi?  If you're looking for just taking the proposition made by the bridi into a sumti place you probably want '''le du'u'''.
***[[User:And Rosta|And Rosta]]:
****The semantics of the converted bridi would be identical to the semantics of the unconverted bridi. The difference would be purely syntactic and would allow a bridi to function as a sumti. Certainly some gadri + '''du'u''' gets you to where '''li ni'e du'u''' would. But (supposing the converter to be '''du'u'u'''), '''du'u''' is defined in terms of '''du'u'u''': '''du'u''' = '''me du'u'u'''. And the rest of NU are also defined in terms of '''du'u'u'''. So the <u>point</u> (even if not the "<u>use</u>") of such a device would be that there would be the possibility of a closer match between lexical form and logical form.
*****[[.djorden.|.djorden.]]:
******Could you perhaps give an example sentence which uses this converter?  I can't yet see how a bridi can function as a sumti just "syntactically".
*******[[User:And Rosta|And Rosta]]:
******** '''du'u'u''' could occur wherever '''le/lo'e/tu'o du'u''' can, modulo any ongoing uncertainty about where exactly '''le/lo'e/tu'o du'u''' can occur. I don't see any difference between their meanings.
********* I don't think there's any uncertainty about the semantics of '''du'u'''; but it sounds like all you really want is '''du'u''', as I had theorized above.
********** The uncertainty is not about the semantics of '''du'u''' but about the semantics of sumti places that accept '''du'u''' sumti. As this is a discussion that has not yet happened, I won't harp on about it. All I really want is something that converts a bridi into a sumti, just as '''du'u''' converts a bridi into a selbri. If there were already a selmaho for that, this page would be redundant, because '''du'u'u''' could exist as an experimental cmavo (which you could happily ignore).
***********[[.djorden.|.djorden.]]:
************I'm just pointing out that '''le du'u''' already does this, regardless of whether you think it is sexy.  It simply takes a proposition and treates as an argument to another relation (which of course is nonsensical if the relation doesn't expect a proposition as the argument, but anyway...)
*************[[User:And Rosta|And Rosta]]:
************** Sure. No argument about this. The rationale for this proposal is to have a sexier language with the possibility of a closer correspondence between lexical and logical form.