From pycyn@aol.com Mon Feb 11 16:52:06 2002 Return-Path: X-Sender: Pycyn@aol.com X-Apparently-To: lojban@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-8_0_2); 12 Feb 2002 00:52:06 -0000 Received: (qmail 63526 invoked from network); 12 Feb 2002 00:52:02 -0000 Received: from unknown (216.115.97.167) by m6.grp.snv.yahoo.com with QMQP; 12 Feb 2002 00:52:02 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO imo-m09.mx.aol.com) (64.12.136.164) by mta1.grp.snv.yahoo.com with SMTP; 12 Feb 2002 00:52:02 -0000 Received: from Pycyn@aol.com by imo-m09.mx.aol.com (mail_out_v32.5.) id r.13f.939ca4a (25714) for ; Mon, 11 Feb 2002 19:51:54 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <13f.939ca4a.2999c128@aol.com> Date: Mon, 11 Feb 2002 19:51:52 EST Subject: Re: [lojban] tautologies To: lojban@yahoogroups.com MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="part1_13f.939ca4a.2999c128_boundary" X-Mailer: AOL 7.0 for Windows US sub 118 From: pycyn@aol.com X-Yahoo-Group-Post: member; u=2455001 X-Yahoo-Profile: kaliputra X-Yahoo-Message-Num: 13227 --part1_13f.939ca4a.2999c128_boundary Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit In a message dated 2/11/2002 5:17:17 PM Central Standard Time, jjllambias@hotmail.com writes: > We more or less > >#understand what {makau broda} means as a subordinate clause, but > >#in Lojban it is also grammatical as a free floating clause. Is > >#there a possible generlization of the meaning so as to cover this > >#case, or are we forced to declare it nonsense?" > > > >As I just said in a message of 2 minutes ago, you need to ask the > >same question about ce'u. > > Ok, but the answer may not be the same. {kau} takes us from an > incomplete bridi to an unspecified completion. {ce'u} takes us > from an incomplete bridi to a property _of something_. I don't > know what to do with a dangling property, but I do know what to > do with a dangling unspecified completion of an incomplete bridi. > I wouldn't know what to do with a floating ke'a-clause either. > I am unclear what "an unspecified completion" might be over and above an incomplete bridi (unless that also includes ones with unfilled places). {ce'u} isn't limited to properties but can turn up in any kind of abstraction (and other things as well), eventually turning them into a variety of things, depending on what you start with. {ke'a) is a relative clause when the relative is not the first argument and so is not capbable of standing free (neither are the others, so far as I can see) since it has to be hooked to the relatum. OK, what do you do with a dangling unspecified completion of an incomplete bridi? How, if at all, is this related to an undangling one (note, you still owe an explanation of that for the things you have been pitching around lately)? --part1_13f.939ca4a.2999c128_boundary Content-Type: text/html; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit In a message dated 2/11/2002 5:17:17 PM Central Standard Time, jjllambias@hotmail.com writes:


We more or less
>#understand what {makau broda} means as a subordinate clause, but
>#in Lojban it is also grammatical as a free floating clause. Is
>#there a possible generlization of the meaning so as to cover this
>#case, or are we forced to declare it nonsense?"
>
>As I just said in a message of 2 minutes ago, you need to ask the
>same question about ce'u.

Ok, but the answer may not be the same. {kau} takes us from an
incomplete bridi to an unspecified completion. {ce'u} takes us
from an incomplete bridi to a property _of something_. I don't
know what to do with a dangling property, but I do know what to
do with a dangling unspecified completion of an incomplete bridi.
I wouldn't know what to do with a floating ke'a-clause either.


I am unclear what "an unspecified completion" might be over and above an incomplete bridi (unless that also includes ones with unfilled places).  {ce'u} isn't limited to properties but can turn up in any kind of abstraction (and other things as well), eventually turning them into a variety of things, depending on what you start with.  {ke'a) is a relative clause when the relative is not the first argument and so is not capbable of standing free (neither are the others, so far as I can see) since it has to be hooked to the relatum.
OK, what do you do with a dangling unspecified completion of an incomplete bridi?  How, if at all, is this related to an undangling one (note, you still owe an explanation of that for the things you have been pitching around lately)? --part1_13f.939ca4a.2999c128_boundary--