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

[pycyn@aol.com]

In a message dated 8/21/2001 1:31:47 PM Central Daylight Time,
lojbab@lojban.org writes:

To me the archetypal ka has holes in ALL places
that are unfilled, including all plausible modal places.  Others seem to
think that the archetype has one and only one hole which is filled by the
ce'u and indicates what the property is "about".

I will agree that most places where a ka abstraction is used in a sumtiare
single-hole examples, but I don't want the assumption that this is always
the case to hold because I'm pretty sure that exceptions can and will occur.

>So, the disagreement is about whether the {ce'u} must always be written in
>and, if not, where the implicit one is.

You use singular ce'u here, begging my issue.

I agree, but was trying not to blow too many minds (which were having
problems with ONE {ce'u}) , cf pc & cowan on {le ka prami}

<How about 3) Like most aspects of the language, features which are implicit
are optional with no guarantee of a "rule" that identifies the
preference.  After all there is no "rule" for what tense applies in a
tenseless bridi, or what number applies in a non-quantified sumti.  There
are *conventions* for some cases but for the most part these conventions
are understood to be less-than-binding over all usages.

Conventions, being non-binding, are best when they are descriptive of
normal use and not prescription that contradict normal usage from before
the convention.>

Well, some would say that conventions precisely ARE binding, since thatis
what they were introduced to do.  In any case, the issue is how tobe precise
and still not hopelessly verbose.
I understand that 3) represent the current Lojban Central position and
recognize its advantage, namely, that you can use any convention you want and
your interlocutor is to blame if he misunderstands.

<>not seem different from {ledo ka ce'u xunre} (to be on the safeside), which
>is also unexplained, but in the same way.

No. It is unexplained in a different way.  leka do xunre specifically
associates do with filling the x1 of xunre; ledo ka ce'u xunre says
absolutely nothing about a relationship between do and x1 or with any other
specific or modal place in the xunre predicate.>

In so far as one can differentiate to lacks of explanation, I don't think
this holds, since the little explanation there is of the form here {ledo ka}
precisely associates the {do} with the {ce'u}, in the absence of a second
place on {ka}

<You are failing to distinguish between "interesting" and "important".  All
of the places of a predicate are "important" by definition or they would
not be part of the place structure, but some are not interesting because
common sense or context is sufficient to identify the value, or because,
while we recognize that there has to be a value, we really aren't will to
think about what it is.

ce'u needs to be stated explicitly when the listener isn't likely to figure
it out from context.>

In the context of what can be dropped in colloquial use, there is no
distinction.  The "important" for places is abstracted from the aprticular
occasion of use.  The last point, at least, just about everyone would agree
with.

xod (And)
<> Since {du'u} doesn't guarantee the presence of a covert or overt
> ce'u, using {du'u ... ce'u} instead of {ka ... (ce'u)} forces all ce'u
> to be overt. Thus those of us who are rightly worried about the
> horrible vagueness/ambiguity of allowing covert ce'u within
> ka bridi can simply not use ka and use du'u instead.



All around, this is the simplest and most elegant solution: ditch ka, use
du'u and some number of ce'u. But what about the kam- rafsi? It's too
useful to abandon.>

This is just plan 1 again, with the loss of {ka}.  It actually makes more
sense (though little enough) to ditch {du'u}, which solves the {kam-} problem.