On Wed, Aug 8, 2012 at 5:20 AM, Efrain Caro
<betsemes@gmail.com> wrote:
On Tue, Aug 7, 2012 at 3:51 PM, Jonathan Jones <
eyeonus@gmail.com> wrote:
> Really? Then why do they ALL have place tags in their definition?
>
> du'u abstractor: predication/bridi abstractor; x1 is predication [bridi]
> expressed in sentence x2.
Lojban than myself; so pardon me whether I'm asking a stupid question.
I want to ask why those definitions contain *[bridi]* in their
definitions.
Because NU eat bridi for breakfast.
For example, {nu mi citka} is "x1 is state/process/achievement/activity of [I eat]."
By themselves, I assume they don't. I must assume thus
that the definition refers to a complete abstraction and not the
abstractor by itself.
It refers to the NU by itself, but the grammar of NU require that a bridi is between NU...[kei]. The grammar has nothing to do with the definition.
How am I wrong? Does any abstractor form an
abstraction all by itself?
No.
If so, what {lo se du'u kei} would mean?
Does it mean {lo se du'u co'e kei}?
No, but I for one think it'd be nice if it did.
Or is it illegal?
Yes.
Please, explain.
mu'o mi'e betsemes