Of course, the reduced form is less precise in saying which is the &qu= ot;capable sumti", unlike [ckaji], for which it's very obvious.

(I'm not saying that ckaji is useless; it's = very useful for selecting predicates applying to some sumti, with [lo se ck= aji be ko'a], at least under my interpretation.)

Also, when it comes to stacked properties/ce'u-enab= led clauses, of which I don't consider [nu] to be a part to be honest, = I'd figure that a non-subscripted ce'u is in the current bridi and = that subscripted ones are 1-based, where 2 is the directly outer bridi. Tha= t is to say:

[lo ka ce'u broda lo ka ce'u brode ce'u xi re]; {ce'u = xi re} is referring to broda1. Using [xi pa] would then parallel, in useles= sness, [sexipa].

mu'o mi'e la tsani

2012/2/21 Felipe Gon=E7alves Assis= <felipeg.a= ssis@gmail.com>

On 21 February 2012 15:29, Jorge Llamb=EDas <jjllambias@gmail.com> wrote:
> 2012/2/21 Felipe Gon=E7alves Assis <felipeg.assis@gmail.com>:
>> On 21 February 2012 12:46, Jorge Llamb=EDas <jjllambias@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> On Tue, Feb 21, 2012 at 6:52 AM, Remo Dentato <rdentato@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> If nobody things that my interpretation is acceptable, I w= ill support
>>>> the interpretation from xorxes.
>>>
>>> I don't see our interpretations as being different.
>>
>> But there is a difference here, xorxes. Remember the sentence
>> =A0{mi kakne lo nu do citka},
>
> (which is equivalent to "mi kakne lo nu se citka do")
>

Yes.

>> which you would likely interpret as
>> =A0{mi kakne lo nu do citka mi},
>> while Pierre, who believes that kakne1 need not be a part of the c= lause
>> in kakne2, even elliptically, would read it as what you write as >> =A0{mi kakne lo nu do citka do'e mi}.
>
> (You meant remod, not Pierre, right?) I can get that reading too.
> That's as general (and vague) as it can get.
>

(yeah...) I understand you can get that reading, but the point is tha= t
your view that there is always an ellision happening when x1 is not
mentioned may lead to relevantly different guesses of the intended
meaning of a sentence under a given context. From remod's mail,
I would not say he agrees with

> But wouldn't the obvious interpretation of that = be "I can be eaten by you"?

Do you, remod?

>> Personally, I think that Pierre's reading is more in line with= the grammar.
>> At the same time, I really wish we used infinitives ({nu} + {ce= 9;u}).
>
> Some people do use them like that. Personally, I'm undecided, but<= br> > since "ce'u" is almost always elided anyway, I don't= have much of a
> problem with it. It could potentially cause trouble when you have
> complex sentences involving both properties and events, for example, > here's one from Alice:
>
> ni'o =ABlu xu do nelci la noltruni'u =97sei la mlatu cu lauble= voksa cusku=97 li'u=BB
> ni'o =ABlu na sai go'i =97sei la .alis. cu cusku=97 .i ny mutc= e .y li'u=BB .i
> ca ku .abu sanji lo nu la noltruni'u cu jibni trixe .abu gi'e = tirna .i
> se ki'u bo di'a cusku =ABlu lo ka lakne fa lo nu ce'u jing= a .i se ki'u
> bo na vamji lo temci fa lo nu mo'u kelci li'u=BB
>

If I understand correctly, the only reasonable interpretation is the = one in
which the {ce'u} is attached to the {ka}, since lakne1 is not an infini= tive.

In order to get that interpretation without looking at the definition
of {lakne},
are you assuming that {ce'u} is never attached to {nu}, as with {du'= ;u}?

Anyway, the means to disambiguate to which of nested abstractors a
{ce'u} corresponds is something that needs to be formally agreed upon,<= br> and to that matter it is essential to decide whether {nu} counts. What
is the status of that?

>> The fact that
>> =A0{mi kakne lo nu dansu},
>> is interpreted by some people as
>> =A0"There is dancing if I want.",
>
> I think almost everybody would interpret it as "mi kakne lo nu > [mi/ce'u] dansu".
>
>> thus leaving the sentence open to mean
>> =A0"I have a gnome in my house that dances whenever I wish.&q= uot;,
>> really sucks.
>
> But the alternative (forbidding any kind of ellision) sucks even more.=
>

But the alternative _is_ to agree that there is an elision happening.=
Accepting that the x1 need not be directly referenced in kakne2
is what forbids you to elide without blurring the meaning.

mu'o
mi'e .asiz.

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups &= quot;lojban" group.
To post to this group, send email to lojban@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to lojban+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/lojba= n?hl=3Den.

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "= lojban" group.
To post to this group, send email to lojban@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to lojban+unsubscribe@googlegrou= ps.com.
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/lojban= ?hl=3Den.
--f46d043748cb3ebb5004b9834b74--