.u'i
I thought I understood the difference between {ka} and {nu}. Now I'm not so sure.
Abstractions are complicated.
On Thursday, July 23, 2015 at 2:30:26 PM UTC-7, selpa'i wrote:
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