.i soi xi re li pai li te'o mi klama le zarci
.i mi simtavla do soi soi le tirxu le cinfo do mi
.i mi klama le zarci soi do
What do such constructions mean?
Pierre
--
li fi'u vu'u fi'u fi'u du li pa
That's a sane attitude.
> 2) I don't understand {soi},
Can't blame you.
> and 3) 2) is the cause of 1).
That's not so good. You shouldn't hate things just because you don't
understand them.
In my opinion SOI should be deprecated.
mu'o mi'e xorxes
I understand "soi", in its normal usage. It's followed by two sumti which
occur elsewhere in the sentence, or sumyma'o which refer to them, and means
that the sentence remains true when those two sumti are exchanged.
What I don't understand is why it can be followed by only one sumti, and
why "soi" can be attached to words, including "soi" itself, in the manner
of "xi". ("soi xi PA" presumably can indicate which bridi is being
reciprocated, but I'd rather put "xi" on "vo'a" to indicate which bridi's
sumti is being exchanged.) Such sentences I regard as syntactically valid
nonsense, like "mi du ra'o do te.u ko'a .ibi'ibo lo finpe be naku cu rodbo'e
xi pai".
Pierre
--
Don't buy a French car in Holland. It may be a citroen.
Well, DUH! Jbofi'e tells you! It means "reciprocal sumti-sub 2 [
pi, e] I is going to the trading place." All you have to do is read.
QED
--gejyspa