On Wed, Jul 23, 2008 at 1:27 PM, Jorge Llambías <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On 7/23/08, Michael Turniansky <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>
>> Are you saying that "mi po'o .e do broda" doesn't make sense to you?
>
> I'm saying it's contradictory, yes.
>
>> It has meaning to me. It means that you broda, and no one else but
>> me also brodas. Consider something like the English, "Besides Johnny,
>> no one else in the class but me knows all state capitals."
>
> So for you it means the same as {fu'e mi .e do fu'o po'o broda}.
> For me it means {mi po'o broda .ije do broda}: "I am the only one
> that brodas, and you broda", which is contradictory.
>
>> > You are saying {ro da poi broda zi'e brode} = {ro da poi broda .e ro
>> > de poi brode}
>>
>> I most certainly am NOT saying that. "ro da poi broda zi'e brode"
>> is not grammatical.
>
> I meant to write {ro da poi broda zi'e poi brode}, sorry.
>
> But consider this:
>
> {ro nanmu ja ninmu poi klama le nolraitru [...] zi'e poi na'e se klacpe}
>
> Does that include all men or women who went to the king, and also
> all men or women who were not summoned, or only all men or women
> that both went and were not summoned?
I agree that this means the intersection of those two things,
covering only those that both went and were not summoned. The
question has never been one of how zi'e and poi interacts, but how
that interacts with po'o to modify the argument of a bridi. If we say
that those people were killed, does that mean that ONLY those people
are killed? Not without the use of a po'o. And depending on where
the po'o is positioned will determine who else might have been killed.
--gejyspa
