jan lawa li ken tomo e tomo e mi
The gubmint can build houses and me.
What a strange notion; I'm already built, if that is what I am. So, something else must be going on. And indeed there is:
'tomo e tomo' is the verb phrase that goes with modal 'ken' all right, but this is the transitive 'ken' "permit, enable" and its direct object is the person enabled to do what is mentioned. That is, this means "The gubmint permits me to build a house" or some such. It would be clearer -- but less fun -- to say 'jan lawa ken ni e mi. mi tomo e tomo' Any suggestions for better ways to say this?
Double objects
Re: Double objects
jan lawa li pana e ken tawa mi. mi ken pali e tomo.
Re: Double objects
pona. taso nimi 'tomo e tomo' li pona tawa mi. kin la nimi 'tan ni la' pi lon sinpin pi kulupu nanpa tu li pona.
Re: Double objects
lon.
taso 'mi tomo e tomo' li suli. 'mi tomo' li lili
'mi pali e tomo' li pona tawa sona e toki sina.
jan li toki e 'mi tomo (e tomo)' tawa mi la, mi sona ala e ni : ona li toki e seme li pali e seme?
taso 'mi tomo e tomo' li suli. 'mi tomo' li lili
'mi pali e tomo' li pona tawa sona e toki sina.
jan li toki e 'mi tomo (e tomo)' tawa mi la, mi sona ala e ni : ona li toki e seme li pali e seme?
Re: Double objects
This would depend on what the spec says (and the spec says nothing AFAIK)
If I were to guess that two objects work like English, it would be, "The government can build me a house."
It looks like this is a novel way to merge two sentences
(jan lawa li ken tomo e tomo) e mi
(jan lawa li ken) tomo e tomo (e mi)
S1 (jan lawa li ken tomo e tomo) - The government can build a house.
S2 (jan lawa li ken) (e mi) - The government enables me.
I think the English makes more sense if it were "The government can let me build a house" I can't enable HUD to build me a house, unless maybe I was a Senator and wanted to enable HUD to opt to provide free housing to Senators, a rather strange scenario.
mi ken moku e kili e sina kin. from mi ken moku e kili, & mi ken e sina kin.
I can eat fruit and I can let you too.
If I were to guess that two objects work like English, it would be, "The government can build me a house."
It looks like this is a novel way to merge two sentences
(jan lawa li ken tomo e tomo) e mi
(jan lawa li ken) tomo e tomo (e mi)
S1 (jan lawa li ken tomo e tomo) - The government can build a house.
S2 (jan lawa li ken) (e mi) - The government enables me.
I think the English makes more sense if it were "The government can let me build a house" I can't enable HUD to build me a house, unless maybe I was a Senator and wanted to enable HUD to opt to provide free housing to Senators, a rather strange scenario.
mi ken moku e kili e sina kin. from mi ken moku e kili, & mi ken e sina kin.
I can eat fruit and I can let you too.
Re: Double objects
I don't think it can mean "The government can build me a house" since the "for me" is not in there anywhere to begin with. The government can give me permission to do something or it can do something for me, but those are two different patterns. jan lawa li ken tomo e tomo tawa mi, not e mi. (or of course, can build my car, but ...).
Similarly, my eating the fruit isn't in the mix once the transitivity of 'ken' is established. The 'kin' doesn't help, since it is more naturally about me as an addition to the fruit, not the eaters.
'tomo e tomo' is a tautology, of course, but no more obscure than 'tomo' is generally: house, room, vehicle, city, ...
pona e toki sina tawa sona?
Similarly, my eating the fruit isn't in the mix once the transitivity of 'ken' is established. The 'kin' doesn't help, since it is more naturally about me as an addition to the fruit, not the eaters.
'tomo e tomo' is a tautology, of course, but no more obscure than 'tomo' is generally: house, room, vehicle, city, ...
pona e toki sina tawa sona?