From jjllambias@gmail.com Sat Mar 13 09:10:21 2010 Received: from mail-bw0-f219.google.com ([209.85.218.219]) by chain.digitalkingdom.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1NqUqu-0005oE-Nq for lojban-beginners@lojban.org; Sat, 13 Mar 2010 09:10:20 -0800 Received: by bwz19 with SMTP id 19so2091847bwz.26 for ; Sat, 13 Mar 2010 09:10:10 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=domainkey-signature:mime-version:received:in-reply-to:references :date:message-id:subject:from:to:content-type :content-transfer-encoding; bh=4B1MSmtp5c75evmWqF8HVOLXjwQBvaJG/dZduB15XD4=; b=DXAkHVE5B/L14zLSijz+EhIdRJYI1dNmHxFw2eNETNg21zpumm3PjrHtTrgMi+tOY7 jtLXQziRDRVnwgW8+jKr/DG5sa8ubjpHZanhiuE+klheLwKA0yOCPRUAzpM88R9DDlqy 6/r3T4bbGwWwOQjn4r/x0wLYAyYn+ebP7DtrY= DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :content-type:content-transfer-encoding; b=V9J2HciK2safXcHUYu+WX+I4LG9VeMQOs8eD9FL4UvH0Z64DKPj+nwBkDUik1ncPoJ znt4rOSPLHAfqhpricktfchVp6+v9j68N4+CDSN8e09JAnajBUMBX9jtzPht7nLVZ3l3 p1F+Nc+IoBJYuJNtbi84aEGopr95IfhTJfraA= MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.204.9.152 with SMTP id l24mr4530698bkl.193.1268500209399; Sat, 13 Mar 2010 09:10:09 -0800 (PST) In-Reply-To: <4de8c3931003130829i74cbd4eegb24574c821da448b@mail.gmail.com> References: <4de8c3931003130452v3473ee1ei70da65f022ac2b1b@mail.gmail.com> <925d17561003130713o346dd22lbe1cb8cf25c66f1c@mail.gmail.com> <4de8c3931003130829i74cbd4eegb24574c821da448b@mail.gmail.com> Date: Sat, 13 Mar 2010 14:10:09 -0300 Message-ID: <925d17561003130910w4bed3bdfya667a8dd3103f909@mail.gmail.com> Subject: Re: [lojban-beginners] Re: How versatile is "nu"? From: =?ISO-8859-1?Q?Jorge_Llamb=EDas?= To: lojban-beginners@lojban.org Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On Sat, Mar 13, 2010 at 1:29 PM, tijlan wrote: > > Yes, that sounds accurate. And it seems to me also consistent with the > gimste's description of NOI as attaching "subordinate bridi", which is > quite the same as what NU takes (even "ke'a" in a NOI appears somewhat > analogous to "ce'u" in a NU). I wonder whether NOIs too could be > called "subordinators". Yes, relative clauses are subordinate bridi too. In fact "ce'u" was one of the last cmavo to be added to the language. Before "ce'u" existed, I used "ke'a" to mark the open slot of "ka", but not many people liked that because they strongly associated "ke'a" with NOI. > "ce'u" is defined as: > > =A0pseudo-quantifier binding a variable within an abstraction that > represents an open place > > Does that not allow its usage with a non-ka subordinator, in which > case "nu" and "du'u" too could be used for incomplete bridi? I don't really see any distinction between "du'u ... ce'u ..." and "ka ... ce'u ...". You could say that "ka" is just a "du'u" with the warning that a "ce'u" place is to be expected (and in fact is often elided). I guess the equivalent for "nu" could be "li'i": mi nelci lo li'i ce'u citka is different from: mi nelci lo li'i citka ce'u but in practice we would probably just say: mi nelci lo nu mi citka mi nelci lo nu citka mi I think I may have used "ce'u" with "nu" at some point, but it's not something that I have found very useful so far. mu'o mi'e xorxes