[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: [lojban] Toward a {ce'u} record



In a message dated 8/19/2001 3:12:12 PM Central Daylight Time,
cowan@mercury.ccil.org writes:



Or 3) Not so -- some {ce'u} may be implicit, and it is up to the
intelligence of the hearer/reader to figure out where they go.


Yes, that is a position too and, indeed, probably what we have been mainly
working with lo these many years.  But it is hideously soft-line and
illogical, since it makes every {ka} phrase vague (or ambiguous, depending on
how hard-line you are).  The problem is that glorking is unreliable at best:
witness pc and cowan on {le ka prami}.  Of course, people often are vague
about just what they mean, but rarely, I think, ambiguous in just this way.

I am relieved to have my reflexive (etc.) worries removed.