From nicholas@uci.edu Thu Aug 23 14:03:19 2001 Return-Path: X-Sender: nicholas@uci.edu X-Apparently-To: lojban@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-7_3_1); 23 Aug 2001 21:03:19 -0000 Received: (qmail 70349 invoked from network); 23 Aug 2001 21:01:24 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.142) by l9.egroups.com with QMQP; 23 Aug 2001 21:01:24 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO e4e.oac.uci.edu) (128.200.222.10) by mta3 with SMTP; 23 Aug 2001 21:01:24 -0000 Received: from localhost (nicholas@localhost) by e4e.oac.uci.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id OAA29684; Thu, 23 Aug 2001 14:01:24 -0700 (PDT) X-Authentication-Warning: e4e.oac.uci.edu: nicholas owned process doing -bs Date: Thu, 23 Aug 2001 14:01:24 -0700 (PDT) X-Sender: To: Cc: Nick NICHOLAS Subject: Re: [lojban] Re: A revised ce'u proposal involving si'o Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII From: Nick NICHOLAS X-Yahoo-Message-Num: 10001 cu'u la xod. >Are we then agreeing that ka fasnu = si'o fasnu? Well, we were until pc came along. :-) The answer was yes. Or at least: du'u, ka, and si'o are propositions, mental abstractions: *du'u with no ce'u by default (but you can still add them in, right? I guess you can, but if you also keep ka in, I'd rather see them added to ka by default) *ka with one ce'u by default, and with at least one ce'u always *si'o with all ce'u by default, which is how you speak of "the concept 'happy'" --- i.e. you are speaking *only* of the selbri, in and of itself, with no arguments filled or even fillable. If si'o is 'concept', I don't think pc's objection holds: a concept's as much a dematerialised abstraction as du'u is. The ma'oste says si'o is abstractor: idea/concept abstractor; x1 is x2's concept of [bridi]. Doesn't say much, but I think this fits with And. What does usage say? Dunno yet, but I'll say one thing: if si'o has *never* been used with sumti --- if people say {le si'o xunre} and never {le si'o mi xunre} --- then And is exactly right about it: the places of a si'o abstraction are all ce'u, and thus unfillable. Btw, pc, I normally don't hold with the "Lynch PC party", but you telling us we're quibbling because we *don't* want to have to insert extraneous {ce'u} and make using the language that much harder... well, it's not constructive. -- == == == == == == == == == == == == == == == == == == == Nick Nicholas, Breathing {le'o ko na rivbi fi'inai palci je tolvri danlu} nicholas@uci.edu -- Miguel Cervantes tr. Jorge LLambias