> krtisfranks wrote:
> > spheniscine wrote:
> > > In (iuro'o toi'e uinai), does toi'e attach to just (ro'o) or
> > Hmmm... I am not sure. I suppose that it is a matter of what we
> > want/practicality. Tell me what you think of this: It is my opinion
> > should apply to only ro'o since it is the single immediately previous
> > cmavo and the definition does not mention clusters; this has a
> > side to it as well: if you want it to apply to a cluster, under this
> > interpretation, you can always force them into one unit via use of
> > and fu'o, whereas if it automatically applied to the entirety of the
> > immediately previous cluster, then there would be no easy way (aside
> > bracketing just one individual cmavo in the cluster with it via fu'e
> > fu'o) to make it apply to just one part of the cluster, which is
> > potentially desirable. I also prefer to bracket longer units, rather
> > smaller ones.
> I think that might be potentially problematic. What of modifiers like
> and cai then? In my understanding, UI-cmavo groups naturally stick
> together like rice; by default, they clump together and all
> apply to the last lexical item.
> Additionally, I don't think fu'e / fu'o is an adequate solution, as
> my understanding fu'e / fu'o act as anchors for UI-cmavo to attach to
> (similar to how a UI-cmavo attaching to a le or ku would affect the
> entire construct. For example, if I wanted to give a long speech about
> things I hope (a'o) for, I might use group the entire thing under a
> fu'e ... fu'o, and attach a'o either to fu'e or fu'o.
> Thus, trying to use fu'e / fu'o to apply UI-cmavo to other UI-cmavo
> cause ambiguity or undefined behavior, since which are the UI-cmavo that
> attach and which are the UI-cmavo that are attached to? Additionally,
> fu'e / fu'o requires forethought and is thus difficult in practical
> Perhaps a solution is to create yet another TOIhE cmavo, that acts as a
> "null" parenthesis (similar to how ke works for tanru) to separate UI
> cmavo. For example, in (au *koi'e ui toi'e iu), iu would apply to ui and
> not au, while without koi'e, it'd apply to both.
Write up that definition. I will support it. Even if other solutions work
with already-present words and modifications/additions to the existing
grammar, an explicit unambiguous and clearly-functioning mechanism could be
helpful, at least in the experimental stage.