Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of seladwa@gmx.de designates 212.227.17.20 as permitted sender) client-ip=212.227.17.20;
Subject: =?UTF-8?B?UmU6IFtsb2piYW4tYmVnaW5uZXJzXSBSZTogRGlmZmVyZW5lcyBiZXR3ZWVuIOKAnGth?=
	=?UTF-8?B?4oCdIGFuZCDigJxudeKAnQ==?=
To: lojban-beginners@googlegroups.com
References: <0e6ef83b-e998-42a2-8e36-2a7dd87348b5@googlegroups.com>
 <ab13bf07-8af7-422b-9ad2-eb60cc9088c6@googlegroups.com>
From: selpa'i <seladwa@gmx.de>
Message-ID: <55B15CF2.4090601@gmx.de>
Date: Thu, 23 Jul 2015 23:30:26 +0200
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 5.1; rv:38.0) Gecko/20100101
 Thunderbird/38.1.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <ab13bf07-8af7-422b-9ad2-eb60cc9088c6@googlegroups.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Reply-To: lojban-beginners@googlegroups.com
Precedence: list
Mailing-list: list lojban-beginners@googlegroups.com; contact lojban-beginners+owners@googlegroups.com
Sender: lojban-beginners@googlegroups.com
X-Spam_score: -1.7
X-Spam_score_int: -16
X-Spam_bar: -
Content-Length: 1676

la zipcpi cu cusku di'e
>       It is easier and
>     cleaner for a language like Lojban to split the two meanings into two
>     separate brivla, one that uses {nu} and one that uses {ka}.
>
> Yes, I have seen {kaidji} and made {kaitcu} as well,

(I already use nitcu2 as a property)

> but I'm not sure
> this is a sustainable route; we'd then need new brivla for every brivla
> where a {ka} belonging to x1 is useful as a substitution of {nu}, such
> as {gleki}, {nelci}, etc...

Would we really, though? Is it necessary to have ka-variants of 
everything? Would you, hypothetically, use {mi sruma lo ka ce'u bilma} 
for "I assume [myself] to be sick"? Or what about {mi kanpe lo ka ce'u 
ba jinga}? Would it be too much to say {mi kanpe lo nu mi ba jinga}?

The {ce'u} actually doesn't save us that much trouble compared to using 
one of the usual back-referencing mechanisms. Logically speaking, the 
reason why {ka} is used in places like nitcu2 or troci2 is not in order 
to not have to repeat the x1, but because it avoids sumti raising and 
makes the predicates much easier to interpret and define. It is 
primarily a semantic concern, not one of convenience; convenience is 
only a lucky by-product of it.

mi'e la selpa'i mu'o

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Lojban Beginners" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to lojban-beginners+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to lojban-beginners@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/lojban-beginners.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.