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.:
  • 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 converter 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.
    • 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 point (even if not the "use") of such a device would be that there would be the possibility of a closer match between lexical form and logical form.
        • .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".
            • 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.:
                      • 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...)
                        • 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.