RE: [jboske] a quick note on poi'i, ce'u, ke'a, and 'bound ' ka (was: RE: Theugly head of ni

["Jorge Llambias" <jjllambias@hotmail.com>]

la and cusku di'e

> 1 {du'u2 ce'u broda} = x1 is the property of being broda
> 2 {du'u2 ce'u broda ce'u} = x1 is the broda relation
>
> 3 {du'u1 ce'u broda} = {du'u ma kau broda}
> = x1 is a (true) completion to {du'u2 ce'u broda}
>
> I conclude that {du'u1} and {du'u2} should be expressible by different
> cmavo. {du'u1} is the one that deviates from current Lojban, so
> would call for an experimental cmavo ({du'au}, say), if only in order
> to allow for a lexicosyntactic form that is closer to logical form.
>
> So how about when ce'u and qkau combine? E.g.
>
> 4 mi se cfila loi du'u ce'u prami ma kau
> "Who I love is a flaw in me"
>
> 5 {mi se cfila loi du'au ce'u goi ko'a zo'u jetnu
> fa lo'e du'u ce'u prami ko'a}

Don't you mean:

mi se cfila loi du'u ce'u goi ko'a zo'u jetnu fa lo'e du'au ko'a prami 
ce'u

The thing in x1 of jetnu has to be completion, not a property.
The thing in x1 of cfila has to be a property, not a completion.
And thing in x2 of cfila has to be the one in x1 of prami, and the
holder of the property in x1 of cfila.

mu'o mi'e xorxes



_________________________________________________________________
Surf the Web without missing calls!?Get MSN Broadband. 
http://resourcecenter.msn.com/access/plans/freeactivation.asp