[lojban-beginners] Re: How versatile is "nu"?

[Jorge Llambías <jjllambias@gmail.com>]

On Sat, Mar 13, 2010 at 1:29 PM, tijlan <jbotijlan@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Yes, that sounds accurate. And it seems to me also consistent with the
> gimste's description of NOI as attaching "subordinate bridi", which is
> quite the same as what NU takes (even "ke'a" in a NOI appears somewhat
> analogous to "ce'u" in a NU). I wonder whether NOIs too could be
> called "subordinators".

Yes, relative clauses are subordinate bridi too.

In fact "ce'u" was one of the last cmavo to be added to the language.
Before "ce'u" existed, I used "ke'a" to mark the open slot of "ka",
but not many people liked that because they strongly associated "ke'a"
with NOI.

> "ce'u" is defined as:
>
>  pseudo-quantifier binding a variable within an abstraction that
> represents an open place
>
> Does that not allow its usage with a non-ka subordinator, in which
> case "nu" and "du'u" too could be used for incomplete bridi?

I don't really see any distinction between "du'u ... ce'u ..." and "ka
... ce'u ...". You could say that "ka" is just a "du'u" with the
warning that a "ce'u" place is to be expected (and in fact is often
elided).

I guess the equivalent for "nu" could be "li'i":

  mi nelci lo li'i ce'u citka

is different from:

  mi nelci lo li'i citka ce'u

but in practice we would probably just say:

  mi nelci lo nu mi citka

  mi nelci lo nu citka mi

I think I may have used "ce'u" with "nu" at some point, but it's not
something that I have found very useful so far.

mu'o mi'e xorxes