From a.rosta@dtn.ntl.com Thu Aug 16 13:53:02 2001 Return-Path: X-Sender: a.rosta@dtn.ntl.com X-Apparently-To: lojban@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-7_3_1); 16 Aug 2001 20:53:02 -0000 Received: (qmail 25962 invoked from network); 16 Aug 2001 20:53:01 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.27) by l7.egroups.com with QMQP; 16 Aug 2001 20:53:01 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO mta06-svc.ntlworld.com) (62.253.162.46) by mta2 with SMTP; 16 Aug 2001 20:53:01 -0000 Received: from andrew ([62.253.89.16]) by mta06-svc.ntlworld.com (InterMail vM.4.01.03.00 201-229-121) with SMTP id <20010816205300.NDDQ6330.mta06-svc.ntlworld.com@andrew> for ; Thu, 16 Aug 2001 21:53:00 +0100 Reply-To: To: Subject: RE: [lojban] On dropping {du'u} or {ka} Date: Thu, 16 Aug 2001 21:52:06 +0100 Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook IMO, Build 9.0.2416 (9.0.2910.0) In-Reply-To: <3d.1015fed3.28ad522d@aol.com> X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2615.200 Importance: Normal From: "And Rosta" X-Yahoo-Message-Num: 9694 pc: > The logical thing to do is drop {du'u} if one is to go. {ka} is the general > case, n-adic relations, while {du'u} is the special medadic case. Of course, > that requires all {ce'u} to be in place. By current understanding, the difference between ka and du'u is precisely that ka is guaranteed to contain a ce'u which may or may not be elided. If ce'u were unelidable then ka and du'u would be entirely equivalent, and the rationale for dropping du'u would be that ka is a syllable shorter. > And all the places of proposition to be filled. > Logic regularly keeps both to allow conventions to deal with > frequent cases at considerable savings in space and time. I don't understand. --And.