From jjllambias@hotmail.com Thu Sep 20 16:06:02 2001
Return-Path: <jjllambias@hotmail.com>
X-Sender: jjllambias@hotmail.com
X-Apparently-To: lojban@yahoogroups.com
Received: (EGP: mail-7_3_2_2); 20 Sep 2001 23:05:56 -0000
Received: (qmail 91357 invoked from network); 20 Sep 2001 23:05:55 -0000
Received: from unknown (10.1.10.26)
  by 10.1.1.223 with QMQP; 20 Sep 2001 23:05:55 -0000
Received: from unknown (HELO n7.groups.yahoo.com) (10.1.10.46)
  by mta1 with SMTP; 20 Sep 2001 23:06:02 -0000
X-eGroups-Return: jjllambias@hotmail.com
Received: from [10.1.10.109] by fj.egroups.com with NNFMP; 20 Sep 2001 23:06:01 -0000
Date: Thu, 20 Sep 2001 23:06:00 -0000
To: lojban@yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: noxemol ce'u
Message-ID: <9odsoo+cvu0@eGroups.com>
In-Reply-To: <103.95af8e9.28db6a2e@aol.com>
User-Agent: eGroups-EW/0.82
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Length: 1270
X-Mailer: eGroups Message Poster
X-Originating-IP: 200.69.11.246
From: jjllambias@hotmail.com
X-Yahoo-Message-Num: 10918


la pycyn cusku di'e

> <I would call {le mamta be ce'u} abuse of notation if it refers
> to a function and not to a mother sort of critter.>
> 
> I know.  But {ce'u} just does that sort of thing, changing 
perfectly good 
> expressions into functions, whose values flow back to the right 
sorts of 
> things.

Normally, {le broda} is {ko'a voi ke'a broda}.
Is {le broda be ce'u} also {ko'a voi ke'a broda ce'u}?
Or does ce'u block this sort otransformation?

> The point now is, we have this perfectly legitimate sumti and a 
theory about 
> what it should mean drawn from logic.  Should we use this material 
or not.  

I think I will pass. 

> We have to explain the construction somehow.  There may be other 
theories 
> about what it means, but none have surfaced yet and they will 
probably not 
> have the good backing of this one nor fit so well into the general 
theory of 
> how {ce'u} and {makau} work.

I don't think it fits all that well.

{le mamta} is clearly distinct from {le du'u makau mamta},
and can never be a substitute for it. I don't see why 
{le mamta be ce'u} should be allowed to stand for
{le du'u makau mamta ce'u}. English allows both substitutions.
Lojban, the way I understand it, does not allow either.

mu'o mi'e xorxes