|
krtisfranks wrote:
> This can be achieved by placing UI immediately after .i or vau, yes?
vau isn't sufficient, especially not in the example sentence I gave in
the notes. Note that there is more than one bridi-tail left open (three, in
fact), thus to actually attach to the entire sentence you require (do sidju
mi lo nu mi zenba lo ni ricfu vau vau vau ui), which just sounds wrong.
My motivation for inventing i'au is to avoid any necessary consideration
for grammatical context or remaining famyma'o when attaching afterthought
attitudinals (i'au a'inai). It could even work where vau won't be
grammatical, e.g. (coi lo tavla pe la .lojban. i'au ui), in which case you
won't have to think (Hm, no I can't use vau because this sentence doesn't
have a bridi. So what famyma'o do I need to use... oh yeah, do'u) (oi)
i is often used as a solution but isn't ideal, as the connection is less
straightforward, and in order to avoid the UI-cmavo applying to the next
sentence you then need another i. This becomes more obvious for UI-cmavo
that imply more than just emotion, substantially changing the meaning of
whatever it is attached to, like pe'a, xo'o or xu. For example:
(do sidju mi lo nu mi zenba lo ni ricfu i'au xu) = (xu do sidju mi lo nu mi
zenba lo ni ricfu) "Is it true that you helped me become richer?" / "Did
you help me become richer?" - parallels certain languages like Chinese
where "true/false" is added as an afterthought.
Compare the following alternatives (note: pathological translations):
(do sidju mi lo nu mi zenba lo ni ricfu xu) "You helped me increase in
something-ness, but is that "rich"?"
(do sidju mi lo nu mi zenba lo ni ricfu vau xu) "You helped me increase in
something, but is that "richness"?"
(do sidju mi lo nu mi zenba lo ni ricfu .i xu [co'e]) "You helped me
become rich. (Something) true or false?" - technically makes the first
sentence a statement rather a question, leaves the true/false question up
to context, and if you want to add another sentence after that another .i
must be used.
|