xajmi la'a ije ku'i nalgleki ju'o<= /div>

And I only got convinced that

{ka=3Dsu'u ce'u}

Such understa= nding would give us a nice abbreviation, though.

B= y {ce'u}-izing gimste I mean that currently each gismu is described in jvs = in

1. glossword

2. keywords

3. definition

4. notes

I propose that we add the fifth it= em

5. ce'u formula.

For <= i>zmadu it will be

3 (1,2)

which means that = the abstraction of the first place has the first slot (i.e. ce'u) referring= equally to the first and the second slots of the nesting brivla.

For kakne we have

2(1)

i.e. lo s= e kakne has ce'u inside that refers to lo kakne.

<= br>

If {ka=3Dsu'u ce'u} then we'll have very nice and compac= t way of expressing such an important and useful concept of nat= langs as infinitives.

I don't like how gua\spi works here = cuz as i can see it demands using another gismu every time you change the v= alue of {ce'u}.

However, many European Indoeuropea= n languages allow very intuitive ways of expressing {ce'u} and {vo'a}.

I want to eat an apple =3D I want that I = eat an apple [a really awkward lojban-style sentence]

{mi djica l= o ka citka??) =3D mi djica lo nu mi/vo'a citka lo plise

So {ka=3Dsu'u ce'u} can be of great use after we= ce'u-ize gimste.

It's reminding me of myself when I "discovered" this= phenomenon some months ago.

On 2 October= 2012 01:26, la gleki <gleki.is...@gmail.com> wrote:

On Tuesday, October 2, 201= 2 12:15:29 AM UTC+4, selpa'i wrote:
Am 01.10.2012 22:04, schrieb Arnt Richard Johansen:
> On Sun, Sep 30, 2012 at 12:56:59AM -0700, la gleki wrote:
>
>> These examples are pretty clear. No ambiguity. Now let's open = Chapter 11.4
>> = http://dag.github.com/cll/11/4/
>>
>> 4.9) la djan. cu zmadu la djordj. le ka mi prami ce'u
>> John exceeds George in-the propert= y-of (I love X).
>>
>> This is something very strange.
>> Let's imagine that I'm a boy and I meet a girl. I tell her
>>
>> {do melbi mi lo ka ce'u clani}
>>
>> Does {ce'u} refer to {do} or {mi}?
> Neither. {ce'u} does not refer to anything, and that's sort of the= whole point. The clause refers to a =93property=94 of being tall *in the a= bstract*, not that of someone in particular being tall.

Yes, but the ce'u place gets filled later by one of the sumti in the=20
parent bridi, and that is what the question was about.

> * lo ka mi clani
> my height
>
> * lo ka do clani
> your height
>
> * lo ka lo penbi cu clani
> a pen being long

These are very non-standard, and probably many would call them=20
incorrect. The only way I can see to make these work is to say that "lo= =20
ka mi clani" is to be interpreted as "lo ka mi no'u ce'u clani", or els= e=20
the "ce'u" would end up in a different sumti place and the meaning woul= d=20
change drastically.

I believe tha= t {ce'u no'u ko'a} is wrong. The bridi in which the property-abstraction ap= pears provides the value for the ce'u-place. Personally filling a ce'u-plac= e changes the abstraction type from ka to du'u.

> * lo ka clani
> being long (OR being a dimension of length OR being a= standard of length)

Right, but much more than with "ke'a", where this is handled much more= =20
loosely, the convention is that "ce'u" fills the first empty slot.

So if there are no {ce'u} = specified we must understand it as the first and only the first slot = is filled with omitted {ce'u}. If two or more of the slots of the nes= ted brivla are filled we must specify all of them (like in {mi e do simxu l= o ka ce'u ce'u prami}), right?

That would make sense however this is something that mu= st be included into CLL 2.0.
IMO {ce'u}-izing gimste is also= a must.

btw, dont you think that we can use= {ce'u} in {mi djica lo ka/nu *ce'u* citka lo plise} instead of {vo'= a/mi}?

S= ure, but what of wanting things that don't involve djica1 at all?
I've thought long and hard about this, as evidenced by the abstractions pa= per that I wrote on the wiki. In general, when an abstraction place doesn't= make sense if you exclude the broda1 from it, then it requires ka.

*{.i mi kakne lo nu do citka lo plise} (example from an= old mriste thread of mine)
is nonsense, which prompts me to beli= eve that kakne2 is a ka or equivalent.

However {.i= mi djica lo nu do klama lo zarci} makes perfect sense, even though the dji= ca1 is not inside the djica2.

The gimste being more prescriptive about abstraction ty= pes would be great, but good luck finding enough people who support the cau= se of more rigid types. (AFAIK there are at most two or three, myself and p= robably you included.)

.i mi'e la tsani mu'o

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "= lojban" group.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msg/lojban/-/ze= HkZeE6vsUJ.
=20 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.
------=_Part_1742_11730283.1349279653489--